ptsd They Owe Me

[Mr cue]

i put in my claim in 94 it was granted 10% i send nod but never got anything 2001 sumitted paper and was granted 100% in 2007 i put in a cue of 94 deicsion it went to bva and they say 94 decision was still open so there can not be a cue of a open claim they say 94 claim was never cretify to the board. so this mean my 2001 100% should be eef 94. they remanded it amc but to look at something that was denied. it state nothing about my eef what would u do. should i talk to finance. or send something to ro.

Another type of CUE claim is an attack on the effective date granted to a claim. This is often seen in either of two failures by the VA.

The first is the non-adjudication of a claim expressly raised by the veteran. If the record shows veteran made a claim, which was simply overlooked and not decided by the VA, the claim is unadjudicated. That is it was never decided and it remains an open claim. If a veteran files a claim for the same benefit sometimes thereafter, normally by filing new and material evidence which reopens the claim, the effective date for this newly reopened claim relates back to the date of the filing of the prior, unadjudicated claim.

The second is an offshoot of the CUE claim based on the VA's failure to sympathetically develop the claim as described above. If the VA had ignored a claim which had been raised by the evidence - and not raised by the veteran's actual claim - [as described above] the claim was and remains unadjudicated. As such, the claim is a pending, never-decided, non-final claim. If a veteran files a claim for the same benefit sometimes thereafter, the effective date for the new claim relates back to the date the evidence first existed in the prior unadjudicated claim's file. That is, although it is a new claim, since it is seeking benefits which are like the benefits the unadjudicated claim's benefits sought [or should have sought if the VA had developed the claim properly when it was raised by the evidence], its effective date relates back to the time when evidence existed in the record which triggered the VA's duty to sympathetically develop that prior claim.

Edited August 25, 2009 by yulooking

[carlie]

Another type of CUE claim is an attack on the effective date granted to a claim. This is often seen in either of two failures by the VA.

The first is the non-adjudication of a claim expressly raised by the veteran. If the record shows veteran made a claim, which was simply overlooked and not decided by the VA, the claim is unadjudicated. That is it was never decided and it remains an open claim. If a veteran files a claim for the same benefit sometimes thereafter, normally by filing new and material evidence which reopens the claim, the effective date for this newly reopened claim relates back to the date of the filing of the prior, unadjudicated claim.

The second is an offshoot of the CUE claim based on the VA's failure to sympathetically develop the claim as described above. If the VA had ignored a claim which had been raised by the evidence - and not raised by the veteran's actual claim - [as described above] the claim was and remains unadjudicated. As such, the claim is a pending, never-decided, non-final claim. If a veteran files a claim for the same benefit sometimes thereafter, the effective date for the new claim relates back to the date the evidence first existed in the prior unadjudicated claim's file. That is, although it is a new claim, since it is seeking benefits which are like the benefits the unadjudicated claim's benefits sought [or should have sought if the VA had developed the claim properly when it was raised by the evidence], its effective date relates back to the time when evidence existed in the record which triggered the VA's duty to sympathetically develop that prior claim.

yulooking,

Do you have a link to the information above or who you credit with writing it?

Thanks,

carlie