Questions On Filing C&ue Claim With An Eed. Circa 1969

[RSG]

I was wondering how I might determine if my claim was worth filing, for a CUE claim with an EED.

My BVA decision seems to indicate to me that a cue claim would be a reality in my case....

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I think the judge seems to think it may be vaild.....How to I go

about verifiyng wether or not this would be, by studying the deci sions he cited on my claim., or is

there something else I should look for....I was just denied My IU also....Got questions there too.

Tnx

[RSG]

Dr's K and doc B. already did that with my nexus letters.....

The word is pronounced FOPAW but it is spelled faux pas. An engineer friend of mine taught me that years ago.

[RSG]

Hi Berta, the original cues could have been the CAlifornia Ro's, the ones that go back to 69?...IS that correct....

RSG

Found what I might have said here that I was looking for!!!

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/julqtr/38cfr3.303.htm

In essence this is 38 CFR Chapter 1, Part 3 Adjudication ,Section 3.303 and this reg goes back to 1961.

It pays to check out the regs alleging CUE that were published at time of CUE.

Yippee!!!!!!! research always pays off! -one of the CUEs lies in their violation of this reg.

The other two are found within the BVA decision but are Bopise RO CUEs.

[Berta]

YIKES- I am writing the CUE claim-this very minute-and was going through the 38 CFR Adjudications regs here-and thought the denials all came from Boise RO-

But this can be corrected when I get this done Ron-

violation of 38 CFR 3.309 (a),

Violation of 38 CFR 3.309(:D

Violation of 38 CFR 3.309 (d)

Violation of 38 USC 1111 and 1153 (which I might have covered in above narration)

Violation of VA General COunsel Pres Op 2-2003

will send you the draft when I get this done-hopefully today-

[Berta]

Yep- I can fix that- using the Los Angeles California Rating decision as an EXhibit- Thanks for pointing this out!

[RSG]

Nope they were just a part of all the denials, from Boise......

Tnx...RSG

Yep- I can fix that- using the Los Angeles California Rating decision as an EXhibit- Thanks for pointing this out!

[Hoppy]

Berta,

“I might be able to say this C & P did not comply with the C & P regs-and it appears the original 1969 denial was not even based on any C & P at all”

If they did do a C&P it would be a good Idea to see what it says. I am still of the opinion that they can make egregious errors and if the medical evidence does not support a chronic disability at the time of the faulty denial the outcome of the claim (denied) would not be changed even if the laws were properly applied.

If there was no C&P on the original decision then it does appear the MEB reports would be sufficient to establish a chronic disability. If you can it might be best to get a copy of the original denial. The new decision might have brushed over issues that were brought up in a C&P if there was one. The VA might have done something similar to what they did to Rockhound. Rock had an MEB board that suggested that he had a permanent disability then the VA got a bogus C&P to say the symptoms at the time of the C&P were due to a personality disorder. I would bet that when they evaluate the CUE it will be on all the evidence of record at the time of the original denial.

The reason the recent decision might have brushed over medical evidence from a C&P done at the time of the first denial is because once a clinician replaces an old DSM II diagnosis with a current diagnosis the original DSM II diagnosis has no legal basis as evidence. However, the previously changed diagnosis is considered proper for the purposes of adjudicating the original decision.