diabetes Unusual Claim

[Berta]

In part:

"In connection with his current appeal, the veteran essentially contends that the error in this case relates to the misdiagnosis of his diabetes insipidus by Navy physicians during service. Since a claim of CUE relates to assertions of error contained within VA determinations, the Board will assume that the veteran further contends that this misdiagnosis in turn caused error in one of the early rating actions that addressed the veteran's claims for entitlement to service connection shortly after his separation from service. He requests that service connection for diabetes insipidus be granted effective from the date of his discharge from service." "In analyzing whether a rating decision is fatally flawed, it is important to keep in mind the meaning of CUE. The applicable regulation provides that previous determinations which were final and binding will be accepted as correct in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. Where evidence establishes such error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) Accordingly, since the RO has more recently determined that such symptoms have been shown to have been manifested since service and warranted service connection for diabetes insipidus, the Board concludes that the veteran is entitled to an earlier effective date of November 9, 1979 for the grant of service connection for diabetes insipidus. A reopened claim for service connection for diabetes insipidus was received on December 15, 1998, and later granted by a rating decision in November 2001. An earlier claim for service connection for disability associated with abnormal water consumption in 1946 and loss of sleep, received on November 9, 1979, was not adjudicated by the RO and was therefore in open status at the time of the RO's rating decision of November 2001. " ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of November 9, 1979 for service connection for diabetes insipidus is granted. http://www4.va.gov/vetapp05/files3/0514860.txt

Parts are out of context-basically the vet lost the CUE but

"veteran further contends that this

misdiagnosis in turn caused error in one of the early rating

actions that addressed the veteran's claims for entitlement

to service connection shortly after his separation from

service."

[deltaj]

In part:

"In connection with his current appeal, the veteran essentially contends that the error in this case relates to the misdiagnosis of his diabetes insipidus by Navy physicians during service. Since a claim of CUE relates to assertions of error contained within VA determinations, the Board will assume that the veteran further contends that this misdiagnosis in turn caused error in one of the early rating actions that addressed the veteran's claims for entitlement to service connection shortly after his separation from service. He requests that service connection for diabetes insipidus be granted effective from the date of his discharge from service." "In analyzing whether a rating decision is fatally flawed, it is important to keep in mind the meaning of CUE. The applicable regulation provides that previous determinations which were final and binding will be accepted as correct in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. Where evidence establishes such error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) Accordingly, since the RO has more recently determined that such symptoms have been shown to have been manifested since service and warranted service connection for diabetes insipidus, the Board concludes that the veteran is entitled to an earlier effective date of November 9, 1979 for the grant of service connection for diabetes insipidus. A reopened claim for service connection for diabetes insipidus was received on December 15, 1998, and later granted by a rating decision in November 2001. An earlier claim for service connection for disability associated with abnormal water consumption in 1946 and loss of sleep, received on November 9, 1979, was not adjudicated by the RO and was therefore in open status at the time of the RO's rating decision of November 2001. " ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of November 9, 1979 for service connection for diabetes insipidus is granted. http://www4.va.gov/vetapp05/files3/0514860.txt

Parts are out of context-basically the vet lost the CUE but

"veteran further contends that this

misdiagnosis in turn caused error in one of the early rating

actions that addressed the veteran's claims for entitlement

to service connection shortly after his separation from

service."

Berta, Was this a BVA decision or was it a Cavc case? I believe this is a useful case. Coulc you provide a link to the decision or provide sufficient information so that the complete case or decision could be found online?

[halos2]

Reads like BVA case to me...did you read the case completely? This is the style posted on BVA cases for all to view. Case docket #, Citation #, etc including evidence and granting...all you don't see is the amount of awardance. ;)

[deltaj]

Reads like BVA case to me...did you read the case completely? This is the style posted on BVA cases for all to view. Case docket #, Citation #, etc including evidence and granting...all you don't see is the amount of awardance. ;)

I am sorry. I didn't read the case completely because I overlooked the link for the case at the end of Berta's post. Notice that my inquiry was posted at 11:30 p.m. when I was very tired and apparently oblivious to what should have been an obvious link.

[Philip Rogers]

Berta, true he lost the CUE but did win back to 11/09/1979, as the case was never adjudicated and remained open. It verifies another way a claimant could win an EED.

pr

In part:

"In connection with his current appeal, the veteran essentially contends that the error in this case relates to the misdiagnosis of his diabetes insipidus by Navy physicians during service. Since a claim of CUE relates to assertions of error contained within VA determinations, the Board will assume that the veteran further contends that this misdiagnosis in turn caused error in one of the early rating actions that addressed the veteran's claims for entitlement to service connection shortly after his separation from service. He requests that service connection for diabetes insipidus be granted effective from the date of his discharge from service." "In analyzing whether a rating decision is fatally flawed, it is important to keep in mind the meaning of CUE. The applicable regulation provides that previous determinations which were final and binding will be accepted as correct in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. Where evidence establishes such error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) Accordingly, since the RO has more recently determined that such symptoms have been shown to have been manifested since service and warranted service connection for diabetes insipidus, the Board concludes that the veteran is entitled to an earlier effective date of November 9, 1979 for the grant of service connection for diabetes insipidus. A reopened claim for service connection for diabetes insipidus was received on December 15, 1998, and later granted by a rating decision in November 2001. An earlier claim for service connection for disability associated with abnormal water consumption in 1946 and loss of sleep, received on November 9, 1979, was not adjudicated by the RO and was therefore in open status at the time of the RO's rating decision of November 2001. " ORDER Entitlement to an effective date of November 9, 1979 for service connection for diabetes insipidus is granted. http://www4.va.gov/vetapp05/files3/0514860.txt

Parts are out of context-basically the vet lost the CUE but

"veteran further contends that this

misdiagnosis in turn caused error in one of the early rating

actions that addressed the veteran's claims for entitlement

to service connection shortly after his separation from

service."

[john999]

Rocky, a hadit member, won a claim that was left open. He filed a CUE but they said the claim was still open for some 20 years or more. He got big retro. The VA lost the part where part of his skull was missing.

[Pete53]

MTSkull or Cudda?