Preparing Nod

[kw34]

Here is an example of the failure to follow their own rules and how they dont proof read or spellcheck their documents. So much for checking for accuracy.

My question, Is anyone aware of this one year rule and could you give me the reg. If you read the evidence below I completed treatment March 2007 recieved SC on Dec 2007 clearly less than 1 year 8 months to be exact. Am I off base here?

Medical records indicate that you underwent Interferon-Alpha therapy for March 2006 to

March 2007. An earlier effective date nor a 100 percent evaluation is warranted because

from the date of onset of your treatment to the completion date of antineoplastic

treatment was more than one before you were service connected for this disability. You

have to be service connected before payment can be awarded. Service connection was not

established until December 5, 2007 in which treatment ended more than one year before

your claim was received at the VA.

[rentalguy1]

they are saying that it was more than one year between when your claim was received at the RO and when your treatment ended, not the time between when you were sc'd and treatment ended. It is worded very poorly and is confusing. i don't know the reg off the top of my head, but someone will post it pretty soon.

[kw34]

Rental, those dates are one and the same Dec 5, 2007.

[Berta]

?

Did you claim an earlier effective date for the award of rating for SC condition?

Their dates are wrong-as you said-

What EED did they give you when they made the Dec 2007 SC award?

It is difficult to read what they mean.

A friend just mailed me his recent decision from Buffalo VARO.

They made two errors in the dates they used.This is careless work and it is disgusting when they do this stuff.

What $ SC did they give you in Dec 2007?

I meant what % SC are you for this condition?

Was this a temp hospitalization claim?

[Philip Rogers]

I'm not understanding your question about the 'one year?' Please post more.

pr

Here is an example of the failure to follow their own rules and how they dont proof read or spellcheck their documents. So much for checking for accuracy.

My question, Is anyone aware of this one year rule and could you give me the reg. If you read the evidence below I completed treatment March 2007 recieved SC on Dec 2007 clearly less than 1 year 8 months to be exact. Am I off base here?

Medical records indicate that you underwent Interferon-Alpha therapy for March 2006 to

March 2007. An earlier effective date nor a 100 percent evaluation is warranted because

from the date of onset of your treatment to the completion date of antineoplastic

treatment was more than one before you were service connected for this disability. You

have to be service connected before payment can be awarded. Service connection was not

established until December 5, 2007 in which treatment ended more than one year before

your claim was received at the VA.

[kw34]

I was diagnosed nov 2005 I filed Dec 5, 2007 ED is the same date. They say I am not entitled to the initial 100% because I filed 1 year after I completed treatment which is not true it was eight months is there any rule that says this I cannot find it.

7833 Malignant melanoma:

Rate as scars (DC's 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or 7805), disfigurement of the head, face,

or neck (DC 7800), or impairment of function (under the appropriate body system).

Note: If a skin malignancy requires therapy that is comparable to that used for

systemic malignancies, i.e., systemic chemotherapy, X-ray therapy more

extensive than to the skin, or surgery more extensive than wide local excision,

a 100-percent evaluation will be assigned from the date of onset of treatment,

and will continue, with a mandatory VA examination six months following

the completion of such antineoplastic treatment, and any change in evaluation

based upon that or any subsequent examination will be subject to the

provisions of §3.105(e). If there has been no local recurrence or metastasis,

evaluation will then be made on residuals. If treatment is confined to the

skin, the provisions for a 100-percent evaluation do not apply.

Edited July 29, 2009 by kw34

[Berta]

The reg said "If treatment is confined to the

skin, the provisions for a 100-percent evaluation do not apply."

Was the treatment more extensive than just the skin?

What is your current SC rating for this condition?