Can One Make Any Money After Getting Iu?

[griffcher]

Can I make any money if I am on IU?

[LarryJ]

There are many veterans who have PTSD, who are not approved for IU benefits. And some of those veterans continue to work for years. And some of those veterans, at some point, become unable to work anymore. And some are eventually granted IU benefits.

I am getting that you are saying that your brother-in-law was granted IU right off the bat. But he chose to go to work. And because he sustained gainful employment for quite some time, the VA decided he was no longer "unemployable," and that, in fact, his SC condition had "improved" as he was now able to work.

That makes perfect sense to me. I am not quite sure why people want to call it fraud.

Unfortunately though, it seems like your brother-in-law is at a disadvantage compared to some other vets with PTSD who eventually stopped working. The other vets, who were not declared disabled (or disabled "enough") in the first place - can now sometimes show that their PTSD has worsened to the point they can no longer work.

As your brother-in-law was declared unemployable in the first place - a determination was made that he had actually improved once he maintained steady gainful employment. So now he is having trouble getting them to connect his disability level to his SC PTSD.

I would hope that some vets would actually feel compassion for a fellow vet with PTSD, who decided to work instead of drawing IU, and later became unable to work and had difficulty reestablishing IU.

"Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

As you said your brother-in-law stopped going to the VA appointments, he also lacked the continuity of care for his condition. Sounds like he decided to just "bite the bullet" and "tough it out" - and let his PTSD go untreated until it came back and bit him in the butt.

But then, again, many vets have toughed it out and got bit in the butt by their untreated PTSD. And many of them also have trouble getting their PTSD SC'd or IU granted. And again, your brother-in-law has most likely had a tougher time because of the determination that his PTSD had improved. And regardless of how unemployable he is from all conditions, he can't get IU unless he has a high enough rating on an SC condition.

I am not quite sure why some people want to call it fraud.

Is there a possibility your brother-in-law can get a VA Pension?

free,

The reasoning behind me stating that I think it is fraud, is this:

The person gets out of the service, apparently rated Totally Disabled due to Individual Unemployability (TDIU). Now, let's consider this TDIU thing:

1. Totally = Completely, absolutely, etc.

2. Disabled = Unable, due to some constraint, either physical or mental, to do things that a non-disabled person can do.

so

#1 + #2 = Completely unable to do things (SOME things, obviously, but not ALL things) that a non-disabled person can do.

3. Individual = singular personage

4. Unemployable = can't work

Now, you've got this ex-service member who got out of the service and was deemed totally disabled and unable to work because of this total disabling condition(s).

And, so, they are receiving a goodly sum of disability compensation BECAUSE they ARE TDIU.

And, they go to work, whilst drawing this disability compensation.

I hold that, if you are working and drawing money from the taxpayers because you say that you can't work, then there is some lying going on somewhere and that you are fraudulently accepting this money under false pretenses (false pretenses = fraud).

At least, that's my reasoning, however convoluted it may seem.

And, I'd be willing to wager (speakin' of gamblin') my next month's compensation check, that, when the person in question decided to go to work, that he didn't DID NOT immediately notify the VA of that fact, and, did in fact, receive compensation from the VA, for TDIU, while, as the same time, working and that it wasn't until the VA noticed that he had reportable wages and that he had ceased attending prescribed treatment, that he was removed from the TDIU rolls.

just sayin'

[jerrbilly]

I think maybe we have beat this point to death. If you feel what you are doing is wrong or unethical, it most likely is.

Do what's right and you get what's right in return.

jerr

free,

The reasoning behind me stating that I think it is fraud, is this:

The person gets out of the service, apparently rated Totally Disabled due to Individual Unemployability (TDIU). Now, let's consider this TDIU thing:

1. Totally = Completely, absolutely, etc.

2. Disabled = Unable, due to some constraint, either physical or mental, to do things that a non-disabled person can do.

so

#1 + #2 = Completely unable to do things (SOME things, obviously, but not ALL things) that a non-disabled person can do.

3. Individual = singular personage

4. Unemployable = can't work

Now, you've got this ex-service member who got out of the service and was deemed totally disabled and unable to work because of this total disabling condition(s).

And, so, they are receiving a goodly sum of disability compensation BECAUSE they ARE TDIU.

And, they go to work, whilst drawing this disability compensation.

I hold that, if you are working and drawing money from the taxpayers because you say that you can't work, then there is some lying going on somewhere and that you are fraudulently accepting this money under false pretenses (false pretenses = fraud).

At least, that's my reasoning, however convoluted it may seem.

And, I'd be willing to wager (speakin' of gamblin') my next month's compensation check, that, when the person in question decided to go to work, that he didn't DID NOT immediately notify the VA of that fact, and, did in fact, receive compensation from the VA, for TDIU, while, as the same time, working and that it wasn't until the VA noticed that he had reportable wages and that he had ceased attending prescribed treatment, that he was removed from the TDIU rolls.

just sayin'

[Philip Rogers]

Thanks, jerr, you're right, that shoulda been $20k annually!!! Oooops!

pr

20k a month FAIRLY good income and average take home?????

I seriously don't think that's the average...Maybe that was a typo.

jerr

[john999]

Consider how someone outside the VA system would look upon a vet who is getting compensated for being unable to work and is working at the same time.

[free_spirit_etc]

free,

The reasoning behind me stating that I think it is fraud, is this:

The person gets out of the service, apparently rated Totally Disabled due to Individual Unemployability (TDIU). Now, let's consider this TDIU thing:

1. Totally = Completely, absolutely, etc.

2. Disabled = Unable, due to some constraint, either physical or mental, to do things that a non-disabled person can do.

so

#1 + #2 = Completely unable to do things (SOME things, obviously, but not ALL things) that a non-disabled person can do.

3. Individual = singular personage

4. Unemployable = can't work

Now, you've got this ex-service member who got out of the service and was deemed totally disabled and unable to work because of this total disabling condition(s).

And, so, they are receiving a goodly sum of disability compensation BECAUSE they ARE TDIU.

And, they go to work, whilst drawing this disability compensation.

I hold that, if you are working and drawing money from the taxpayers because you say that you can't work, then there is some lying going on somewhere and that you are fraudulently accepting this money under false pretenses (false pretenses = fraud).

At least, that's my reasoning, however convoluted it may seem.

And, I'd be willing to wager (speakin' of gamblin') my next month's compensation check, that, when the person in question decided to go to work, that he didn't DID NOT immediately notify the VA of that fact, and, did in fact, receive compensation from the VA, for TDIU, while, as the same time, working and that it wasn't until the VA noticed that he had reportable wages and that he had ceased attending prescribed treatment, that he was removed from the TDIU rolls.

just sayin'

Larry,

Thank you for explaining that, and thank you for being respectful in your response.

I am having trouble understanding why you are so sure that the person did not report their earnings to the VA. While it is possible that is what occurred, I think it is also very possible that the veteran returned to full time work, reported it, and was taken off TDIU. I see no harm in granting a veteran the benefit of the doubt unless the evidence shows otherwise.

I also am beginning to understand that this is really an emotionally charged issue for many on this board. Yet the argument I hear the most is that Unemployable means you can't work; not at all, no work what-so-ever, etc.

What I have trouble understanding is why the members of this board keep putting conditions on this that Congress, the VA, and Social Security did not. All three have specifically stated that Unemployable means that you unable to work in a substantially gainful way. According to their standards, someone who can work - but only a small amount - is Unemployable. Someone who can work but because of their disability is unable to hold a job for any amount of time is Unemployable. (That can be someone who can't get along with others because of their disability, someone who misses a lot of work because of their disability, etc.)

If Congress wanted to require a person to be totally unable to work at all, they could have done so. However, they did not put such requirements on the programs, so I have trouble understanding why members of the board are so insistent on doing so.

I realize that many people collecting disability do work under the table without reporting their earnings. And yes, that is fraud. Ironically, some of those people wouldn't be taken off disability if they did report their earnings because they really ARE unable to earn much or maintain any steady employment.

But many people do return to work AND report their earnings. Some are eventually taken off disability. Some are not. It depends on the facts in their case. But I do not agree that they should be judged so harshly, or called frauds, just because they worked. It would seem like Congress intended for people on disability to be able to TRY to work - as they set up a whole set of rules for that to happen.

And yes, some people do lie. And some people do commit fraud. But not everyone who works commits fraud. In fact, some people who do not work commit fraud.

Just as there are cases of people who work and don't report it, there are also cases of individuals who become capable of working again, but don't. Is that better?

John Q Public is granted SSD and TDIU - and later thinks he might be able to try to work. But if he tries to work, he is suddenly a fraud, because he is lying by working AND collecting benefits (even though the law allows him to do so under certain conditions - or for a period of time).

Or John Q Public is granted SSD and TDIU - and later thinks he might be able to try to work, but he doesn't try at all, because he might lose his benefits, and it really isn't "right" for him to collect benefits AND work (even when it is allowed by law) so he just decides to collect benefits, rather than rock the boat? Does that make him a better person?

I am not saying that every person on disability should try to work. But I am saying that not everyone who works is a fraud - and not everyone who doesn't work is not a fraud.

I definitely think that people who consistently work and intentionally keep their earnings low in order to keep getting benefits (but are actually capable of earning more) are "gaming the system" (i.e. frauds). But I don't believe the mere fact that you work or don't work is the deciding factor in determining how honest a person is.

And I also believe that vets who ask are entitled to information that affects the choices they make. They certainly shouldn't jump into trying to work without being fully informed. But neither should they shy away from trying to work without being fully informed.

I do understand that most people on the board do not agree with me.

Free

[free_spirit_etc]

Consider how someone outside the VA system would look upon a vet who is getting compensated for being unable to work and is working at the same time.

John,

I think you bring up a somewhat valid point. And I imagine some people outside the system would not think too highly of the idea. But most people outside the system don't understand the system anyway. They would have trouble discerning which vets were getting compensated for SC conditions and which vets were getting compensated for being unable to work.

So would you suggest that vets who were drawing a certain amount of compensation because of the SC conditions quit working so that people on the outside of the VA wouldn't look at them badly? What level of SC disability should a Vet be allowed to draw and still remain employed?