tdiu Considering Lawyer For Eed

[broncovet]

I checked one of Alex Humphries posts, the now deceased Veteran advocate lawyer who used to help Veterans by posting on this board. He recommended a law firm, so I called them.

Essentially, I have been awarded 100% P and T, but at an effective date 5 years later than when I applied.

I dont want to mess up my 100% P and T, but on the other hand, strongly feel that my effective date should be in 2002 because I applied for a benefit increase by an informal claim at the Docs office. Alex Humphrey pointed out, in his post, that if a Veteran goes to his doc complaining of unemployment issues, that constitutes an informal claim for TDIU.

Roberson vs Principi states it this way:

when the VA conducts a medical examination . . . if the results indicate an increase in severity in the disability, VA must then evaluate the circumstances as a claim for an increased rating. Further, the Court holds that when an RO is considering a rating increase claim from a claimant who’s schedular rating meets the minimum criteria of section 4.16(a) and there is evidence of current service-connected unemployability . . . evaluation of that rating increase must also include an evaluation of a reasonably raised claim for a TDIU rating. In that situation, where those two criteria are satisfied, a well-grounded TDIU claim is included in every rating-increase claim, and VA would be required to adjudicate that well-grounded TDIU claim.

Source: http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judic...ns/00-7009.html

I have already filed a NOD to the March, 09 RO decision which awarded 100% P and T, disputing the effective date.

If the VA gets away with delaying the Veterans claim for 5 years, then finally awarding benefits with an effective date 5 years later, they have succeeded in swindling the Veteran out of 5 years of benefits.

I really do not think it is fair to other Veterans for me to just sit by and watch the VA do this. My guess is that they have done this to other Veterans.

Veterans need to know that informal claims are a perfectly legitimate way of applying for benefits. Altho I dont recommend not following this up with a formal claim for benefits, informal claims should trigger the VA to assist the Veteran applying for benefits, under this important court case.

[carlie]

Essentially, I have been awarded 100% P and T

bronco,

Could you please update your profile to reflect your new rating.

Thanks,

carlie

[Shark]

Shark- I think you should send them a letter as an 'Addendum' not a SOC- telling them that you expect an EED that fully reflects this documented medical evidence of a secondary DMII condition.

Whoops...My bad, I meant should I send in a request asking for the 2005 effective date on a 21-4138, not SOC! What I sent in yesterday on a 21-4138 is:

"I am requesting a rating on hypertension as secondary to my diabetes 2 for which I am currently service connected.

On March 4th, 2005 you had me attend a C & P examination with a Dr. XXXXX in relation to my claim for peripheral neuropathy. In an addendum to his report he stated:

'The veteran reported high blood pressure problem for the past two years and has been on antihypertensive medication. The diagnosis is HYPERTENSION, at least as likely as not related to diabetes.'

I feel that the rating for hypertension should have been inferred at that time.

I am currently taking Losartan 50mg 2 times per day along with Carvedilol 6.25mg 2 times per day and my blood pressure is still consistently in the 140-150/80-90 range.

I am also requesting a rating for my GERD which was initially reported as heartburn on several visits to the doctor while in the service and is documented in my SMR. I have been taking antacids for years until diagnosed with GERD in the late 1990's and have been on Pepsid and am currently taking Omeprezaole on a daily basis."

I did not spell out that I wanted a March, 2005 effective date, just that it should have been inferred at that time. Don't know if they will understand that or if I should send in another 21-4138 specifically requesting that.

Thanks again!

[Berta]

I think you did great here on the 4138.

And I sure get it because you made you point clear-I hope they get it.

[broncovet]

Sharp..

I think its worth a try. What have you got to loose? Read Roberson vs Principii at http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judic...ns/00-7009.html

to see if it applies to you.

[john999]

If you don't meet the schedular requirement % for IU, but a doctor says that you are unemployable due to your SC disability isn't that also an inferred claim for IU?

In the bad old days in order to get high rating for a mental health claim you had to be psychotic or suffering from the kind of PTSD like from old films of soldiers with shell shock.