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]

Hoppy,

there were never any C&P exams, associated with any of those decisions....

At all....

RSG

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.

[Berta]

I emailed you the final CUE RSG-

Nope Hoppy not any C & P exams at all-

This is way before the VCAA and how that enhanced our rights.

Evidence for RSGs CUE (which was made by a RO) is within 38 CFR 3,303,VA OGC Pres Op #3-2003 and the August 2008 BVA decision itself.

[deltaj]

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(;)

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, Notice the smiling face in the middle of your post covering a letter after what should be the letter B in parantheses? I tried to put B in parantheses in my post and the same thing happened.

Edited September 15, 2009 by deltaj

[deltaj]

As far as the VARO submitting to my last employers go , nobody responded to any of there requests for anything,

I earned less than 6000.00 since 2001, IRS say's so.Kinda goes along with the statement in red....

Do I need to disagree with certain parts, or should I just quit messing around and nail the jerks to the wall.....

Go with the CUE and eed April of "69"........Or just pursue the The IU.....OR both.......I am really torn up by this...

and really, really,really angry.....As well as getting more and more depressed.......I am getting to my

wits end with these stupid games they play............When they know dang well they are 100% wrong.........

There is also a section © to 38 CFR 4.16 that took in effect in 1989 and was often disregarded by examiners in 1989 and subsequent decisions. That new regulation required V.A. to grant a 100% rating to any veteran who was rated 70% and was unemployable as a result of his service connected mental disability. One of the cases on the mainpage coming into hadit is about V.A.'s error in failing to consider that regulation before making a decision. This computer is fouling up by showing a letter c in a circle when it is supposed to be a letter c in a set of parantheses ().

Edited September 15, 2009 by deltaj

[deltaj]

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(;)

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-

Is there a typographical error here someplace? I ask because I am seeing references to V.A. Office of General Counsel Precedent Opinions 2-2003 and 3-2003? Which is the correct VA OPG Prec Opinion you are referring to?

[deltaj]

Delta -there is no CUE in the BVA decision. The CUES are in the RO denials prior to Ron's award letter-back to 1969.

Berta, I suspect you are right that the CUEs are in the RO denials, but nonetheless those earlier decisions have possibly been subsumed by the BVA decision so the errors in the BVA decision possibly must be attacked in a request for reconsideration.