De Novo Review/dro Help Needed!

[emily]

I have read the DRO Info from Carlie, I just can't understand it. As you know I was granted service connection for the cause of the veteran's death and entitlement to educational benefits,by the BVA, on June 21, 2004. On August 11, 2004, a letter was received from the RO, stating "We made a decision of your claim for DIC". The RO Pittsburgh, granted DIC effective May 12, 1993 and Dependents' effective December 3, 1981. I read 38 U.S.C.A. 5113 (a). "the effective date of an award of educational benefits shall correspond to effective date related to an award of disability conpensation. I told my rep. from the DAV, he said don't say anything because they might take the ED. away from me! I didn't get my check untill Oct! I filed for an earlier effective date September 21, 2004 which was denied. I would file an appeal and get denied. On June 10, 2005 I was sent another DECISION of the effective date of service connected death benefits prior to June 1, 1993 denied! De Novo Review performed based on all the evidence of record! Alot of pertinent information was missing. I requested a hearing which was held on September 6, 2005, my service rep. knew nothing about it. I prepaired a breif of the corrections. It is going on six months, they have not made a decesion. I call a couple times a week, they tell me the same they are still working on it! The June 10, 2005 SOC, I know they only have one time (SOC of the law and evidence my claim). Alot of the LAW in the SOC is in my favor. Some time ago someone from HADIT gave me a name telephone number of a man in DC who helps the Veteran, I think his name was Richard.

Edited February 13, 2006 by emily

[Guest Berta]

Emily- I see 55 people read your post and no one replied.

I am replying the same way I did in the past to your question---

Your DIC decision on your EED from the VARO is correct. May 12, 1993.

If the VA receives a completed 21-534 application for DIC wthin one year after the veteran's death- and they award DIC- the widow gets retro back to the month of the veteran's death.

Otherwise the EED is the date they received the 21-534.

In past posts you stated that you applied for benefits one month after he died and then this appeared to be-in your posts- you meant the Burial Benefit form- on which they ask if you claimed SC death-

as I recall you checked off No-

Your BVA decision Docket 97-20-067A reinterates that this remand is based on the filing of a NOD in 1997-meaning within the year prior to that NOD they had denied the claim,and more importantly- it shows that within probably 3-4 years prior they had the actual receipt of the claim- the formal 21-534.

In all the time your claim took to get and award-you did not question the formal 21-534 or the date you filed it.

If the VARO gives you an earlier ED they would be re-writing 38 CFR.

And they would also owe thousands and thousands of dollars to DIC widows and widowers who

filed DIC applications AFter the legal one year deadline and received EED only back to date of their application.

Nehmer class action spouses are different-those EEDs are different-

It pays to remind all here that the VA tried to snooker millions from Agent Orange vets and their spouses by misinterpreting Nehmer-years back-but NVLSP got them their money-

Under Nehmer even if a surviving spouse was denied DIC years ago whether she filed within one year after death of the veteran or not-she can re-open the claim-and in most cases -get retro back to the month the veteran died in for most AO related deaths, if caused or contributed to by any of the presumptive AO Diseases in 38 CFR.

Edited February 14, 2006 by Berta

[emily]

Emily- I see 55 people read your post and no one replied.

I am replying the same way I did in the past to your question---

Your DIC decision on your EED from the VARO is correct. May 12, 1993.

If the VA receives a completed 21-534 application for DIC wthin one year after the veteran's death- and they award DIC- the widow gets retro back to the month of the veteran's death.

Otherwise the EED is the date they received the 21-534.

In past posts you stated that you applied for benefits one month after he died and then this appeared to be-in your posts- you meant the Burial Benefit form- on which they ask if you claimed SC death-

as I recall you checked off No-

Your BVA decision Docket 97-20-067A reinterates that this remand is based on the filing of a NOD in 1997-meaning within the year prior to that NOD they had denied the claim,and more importantly- it shows that within probably 3-4 years prior they had the actual receipt of the claim- the formal 21-534.

In all the time your claim took to get and award-you did not question the formal 21-534 or the date you filed it.

If the VARO gives you an earlier ED they would be re-writing 38 CFR.

And they would also owe thousands and thousands of dollars to DIC widows and widowers who

filed DIC applications AFter the legal one year deadline and received EED only back to date of their application.

Nehmer class action spouses are different-those EEDs are different-

It pays to remind all here that the VA tried to snooker millions from Agent Orange vets and their spouses by misinterpreting Nehmer-years back-but NVLSP got them their money-

Under Nehmer even if a surviving spouse was denied DIC years ago whether she filed within one year after death of the veteran or not-she can re-open the claim-and in most cases -get retro back to the month the veteran died in for most AO related deaths, if caused or contributed to by any of the presumptive AO Diseases in 38

As of today 102 reviewed my post with just one answer, what does this mean? It is so hard th read the post. You notice the one reply is listed as #1 and the sender is listed #2. I was no married to my husband when he got dischared from the service in 1950. I did not know anything about the VA. I did not know about the different forms such as 21-534.The application for burial was sent to the VARO by the funeral director and received by the VARO Jan. 29, 1982. I received a letter from the VARO dated Feb. 26.1982 stating "the evidence does not show that the veterans' death was due to service connected condition! Tje question asked "do you claim SC death". I checked the box no, that was in 1995. The Dec. 23, 1999 Remained does not say the claim goes back to 1993. The BVA granted me "service connection for the cause of the veteran's death". and "entitlement to educational assistance befefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code". Under 38 U.S.C.A. 5113, "The effective date of an award of educational benefits under chapter 35 shall correspons to the effective date related to an award of disability compensation". I would think the Law Judge from the BVA knows the law. One month after my husband's death my brother took me to meet with a "Veteran's Benefits Councilor". The VBS told me I can not get benefits because my husband did not have a SCD. Who was I to question him or the VARO. I did not know they do not tell the truth! What he did with the file I do not know, I would think if the VARO answered Feb. 26, 1982, they loss the form.3.400 "the disability pension award may be effentive from the date of receipt of claim or the date on which the veteran became permanently and totally disabled, WHICHEVER IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE VETERAN. In March 2003 I got a letter from an IME who is a specialist in STD who provided documentation of his background and credentials as a specialist in infectious diseases and internal medicine. He opined that the veteran had cardiovascular syphisis with aortic regurgitation lead ing to congestive heart failure. He furnished medical literature in support of his opinion and referred to the pertinent findings in the service medical records. Title 38 CFR sec. 3.312 Cause of death. "When the service-connectied condition affects wital organs as distinguished from muxcular or skeletal function and is evalusted as 100% disabling, debilitation may be assumed. In this situation however, it would not generally be resonable to hold that a service connected condition accelerated death unless such condition affected a vital organ and was of itself of a progressive or debilitating nature! In Hix v. Gober, 225 f.3d 1377.

[emily]

Emily- I see 55 people read your post and no one replied.

I am replying the same way I did in the past to your question---

Your DIC decision on your EED from the VARO is correct. May 12, 1993.

If the VA receives a completed 21-534 application for DIC wthin one year after the veteran's death- and they award DIC- the widow gets retro back to the month of the veteran's death.

Otherwise the EED is the date they received the 21-534.

In past posts you stated that you applied for benefits one month after he died and then this appeared to be-in your posts- you meant the Burial Benefit form- on which they ask if you claimed SC death-

as I recall you checked off No-

Your BVA decision Docket 97-20-067A reinterates that this remand is based on the filing of a NOD in 1997-meaning within the year prior to that NOD they had denied the claim,and more importantly- it shows that within probably 3-4 years prior they had the actual receipt of the claim- the formal 21-534.

In all the time your claim took to get and award-you did not question the formal 21-534 or the date you filed it.

If the VARO gives you an earlier ED they would be re-writing 38 CFR.

And they would also owe thousands and thousands of dollars to DIC widows and widowers who

filed DIC applications AFter the legal one year deadline and received EED only back to date of their application.

Nehmer class action spouses are different-those EEDs are different-

It pays to remind all here that the VA tried to snooker millions from Agent Orange vets and their spouses by misinterpreting Nehmer-years back-but NVLSP got them their money-

Under Nehmer even if a surviving spouse was denied DIC years ago whether she filed within one year after death of the veteran or not-she can re-open the claim-and in most cases -get retro back to the month the veteran died in for most AO related deaths, if caused or contributed to by any of the presumptive AO

Diseases in 38

As of today 102 reviewed my post with just one answer, what does this mean? It is so hard th read the post. You notice the one reply is listed as #1 and the sender is listed #2. I was no married to my husband when he got dischared from the service in 1950. I did not know anything about the VA. I did not know about the different forms such as 21-534.The application for burial was sent to the VARO by the funeral director and received by the VARO Jan. 29, 1982. I received a letter from the VARO dated Feb. 26.1982 stating "the evidence does not show that the veterans' death was due to service connected condition! Tje question asked "do you claim SC death". I checked the box no, that was in 1995. The Dec. 23, 1999 Remained does not say the claim goes back to 1993. The BVA granted me "service connection for the cause of the veteran's death". and "entitlement to educational assistance befefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code". Under 38 U.S.C.A. 5113, "The effective date of an award of educational benefits under chapter 35 shall correspons to the effective date related to an award of disability compensation". I would think the Law Judge from the BVA knows the law. One month after my husband's death my brother took me to meet with a "Veteran's Benefits Councilor". The VBS told me I can not get benefits because my husband did not have a SCD. Who was I to question him or the VARO. I did not know they do not tell the truth! What he did with the file I do not know, I would think if the VARO answered Feb. 26, 1982, they loss the form.3.400 "the disability pension award may be effentive from the date of receipt of claim or the date on which the veteran became permanently and totally disabled, WHICHEVER IS TO THE ADVANTAGE OF THE VETERAN. In March 2003 I got a letter from an IME who is a specialist in STD who provided documentation of his background and credentials as a specialist in infectious diseases and internal medicine. He opined that the veteran had cardiovascular syphisis with aortic regurgitation lead ing to congestive heart failure. He furnished medical literature in support of his opinion and referred to the pertinent findings in the service medical records. Title 38 CFR sec. 3.312 Cause of death. "When the service-connectied condition affects wital organs as distinguished from muxcular or skeletal function and is evalusted as 100% disabling, debilitation may be assumed. In this situation however, it would not generally be resonable to hold that a service connected condition accelerated death unless such condition affected a vital organ and was of itself of a progressive or debilitating nature! In Hix v. Gober, 225 f.3d 1377.