Dic Claimants

[carlie]

Check out this ruling for EED:

Van Valkenburg v Shineski.

It's about 1/2 way down.

Hope this helps a VA claimant.

carlie

Thailand_AO_Exposure.pdf

[sharon]

Good find :)

[deltaj]

Check out this ruling for EED:

Van Valkenburg v Shineski.

It's about 1/2 way down.

Hope this helps a VA claimant.

carlie

Thailand_AO_Exposure.pdf

This is an interesting case. It seems to be referring to 38 CFR 3.201.

[Berta]

The Thailand AO vet criteria in this VA bulletin -was solely inspired by a hadit member-Kurt Priessman- who is now writing at VA Watchdog- in the Brick by Brick series on the VA system.

Kurt won the first Thailand AO vet claim-and won at the regional level.

AO advocates have been discussing his claim ever since and he has had impact on any Thailand vet who served with perimeter MOS in the time frame of the DOD reports Kurt used to support his case.

I remember when Kurt had first filed his claim-AO in Thailand- it seemed he would have a very long road to travel-

however he relentlessly foiaed the DOD etc and succeeded in proving AO was used on base perimeters during the Vietnam War.

I posted this bulletin here as soon as it came out-and we discussed at SVR radio- thanks Carlie for bringing this up again-

because many affected veterans still might not be aware of this.

[Berta]

Oh-you meant the DIC case-

Yes-this is good info-

SSA survivor benefits should be considered as initial DIC application.

I didnt read the CAVC decision but I noticed right away that the DIC 534 claim appeared to have been filed with VA outside the one year accrued benefit time frame.

The CAVC decision gave her about 11 years more of DIC retro-

If there were accrued benefits due her -however- I hope the widow pursued them using this decision -as the SSA app was filed within the first year after death.

There is a case at VA Watchdog Jim has mentioned-

they granted DIC but denied accrued.

I could not open his attachments there (the widow gave him permission to post the decision at Watchdog)

There is a new DIC regulation allowing "substitution of claimants" who die after OCtober 9,2008.

38 USC 5121

A claimant can request to be substituted for the deceased claimant.

They must make this request within one year after the veteran died.

It is basically the same accrued benefit scenario-but it is supposed to allow the claim to be continued as it stands pending-

instead of -as DIC claims traditional were prior to this reg-

they began again one day one where the survivor had to re-open and continue the pending deceased veterans claim.

In my opinion this reg could prevent reps and SOS for telling widows the decades old mantra that the "claim died with the vet."

When the DAV told me this-suggesting I had no basis for DIC or re-open claims-I immediately rattled off the actual DIC regs-

and this same NSO found out I succeeded in spite of his chronic ignorance of DIC regs-

in the DAV's lawyers office.

Many spouses do not get involved with their vet spouses claims.

They should certainly be aware that if their spouse dies they might have a very hard time with the VA.

And if they get a rep who doesn't have a clue on DIC- they might not have a chance.

DIC can be so complex that the VBM has considerable info on it.

I applied for SSA survivor benefits but also for DIC at the same time.

There is nothing in my c file to show that my SSA app was also a DIC application.

Although the C & P Bulletin makes this point-that Carlie posted link to-

I sure would not trust VA to consider any survivor's SSA app as a formal DIC claim-which should be filed on a 21-534.