A Bva Case That Would Make Anyone Want To Run

[carlie]

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp09/files2/0915238.txt

Citation Nr: 0915238

Decision Date: 04/23/09 Archive Date: 04/29/09

DOCKET NO. 07-13 249 ) DATE

)

)

On appeal from the

Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in No. Little

Rock, Arkansas

THE ISSUES

1. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

nerve and muscle damage due to surgery, right groin (to

include right pelvic/hip damage causing the right side to be

shorter than the left).

2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for root

canal problems (to include gum disease with loss of teeth).

3. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

fibromyalgia (to include body wide sickness and nausea

secondary to dental work and extreme fatigue).

4. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

depression.

5. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

insomnia.

6. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for neck

problems (claimed as neck problems with bone spurring to

include bad headaches).

7. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for back

problems, claimed as scoliosis in the spine (to include lower

back damage (injury)).

8. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

chronic ear problems (claimed as hole punctured and eardrum).

9. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

anemia.

10. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

vision problems (to include an eye condition).

11. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

hearing loss.

12. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

impairment, right knee.

13. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

right foot condition.

14. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for a

head condition.

15. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

carpal tunnel syndrome, right (also claimed as paralysis of

medial nerve).

16. Whether new and material evidence has been received to

reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for

carpal tunnel syndrome, left (also claimed as paralysis of

medial nerve).

17. Entitlement to service connection for left knee

condition.

18. Entitlement to service connection for left foot

condition.

19. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis.

20. Entitlement to service connection for cystic fibrosis.

21. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for

inguinal hernia, right, postoperative.

22. Entitlement to a disability rating greater than 10

percent for scar, right inguinal hernia repair.

[john999]

Some people just throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. This could only be good if you are a Vietnam vet doing a carpet bombing of the VA to cover yourself for presumptive AO. However, for most purposes having just one or two really good claims that will put you at IU or 100% is better than a hundred 0% claims. I think some file because of frustration and think they are bound to win something, but that is not so. The VA denies really good claims every day, so why does one think 29 weak claims will get anywhere?

[Testvet]

Some people just throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. This could only be good if you are a Vietnam vet doing a carpet bombing of the VA to cover yourself for presumptive AO. However, for most purposes having just one or two really good claims that will put you at IU or 100% is better than a hundred 0% claims. I think some file because of frustration and think they are bound to win something, but that is not so. The VA denies really good claims every day, so why does one think 29 weak claims will get anywhere?

Like you said "they hope something will stick" any rating is better than all "denied" a rating "THIS IS WHAT VSO'S GET PAID TO DO." then there is this attitude she didn't use and SO there wasn't an agency or lawyers name listed as a representative the veteran did this on their own so the VA had to process but it should have just been killed due to no new evidence but like all veterans they had to have their day in court and wasted how many hours? sometimes we can all over think the process

[jbasser]

She should have bought a Powerball ticket instead. She would have better odds of winning.

J

[myround0]

I'll bore you and provide you with a repeat of my previous posting on this matter, or you could, like me, read the ENTIRE decision:

"And, this veteran ACTUALLY presented claims to RE-open TWENTY-NINE previously denied claims.

And, she did this (filing to re-open) without ANY new or material evidence for ANY of these claimed disabilities, thereby making moot the point of re-opening her claims!She wasted her time and the time that the VA COULD HAVE BEEN helping decide a more deserving veteran's claim.

This is a perfect example of when someone should have the help of an experienced VSO or even the help of, for example, THE HADIT BOARD!

(btw, I read THE WHOLE THING, which is an indication that I don't have much to do this evening)"

I want to get this points out, BEFORE I HAMMER THE VA. I haven't read anything but what has been posted, what I mean by that is I haven't bothered to read the decision on any claim she made. That doesn't concern me. What does concern me is an PR effort to say, THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T GET TO YOUR CLAIM. I have no sympathy for the backlog THE VA CREATED FOR THEMSELVES. To say she had no new material, means nothing to me, SINCE WE KNOW HOW THE VA CAN GET THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL wrong. I have no problem with calling a spade a spade, but I do have a problem with shedding blame. This Veteran is not the problem in my opinion. I know, I went through the TAP seminar in 2006, I know what the VA rep does. He/She goes through your records and cherry picks the things that would cost the VA the least and tells you submit this. Well ten years later you find out things from talking with others, and then you find out the VA and their REPS are in it for themselves, not you. I guess my point is this, IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE VA. If the personnel they sent to the seminars weren't in it for themselves, and they did their job in with integrity, instead of greed, then maybe this could have been avoided. I can't for the life of me, find one reason to feel bad for the VA in this issue.

[LarryJ]

I want to get this points out, BEFORE I HAMMER THE VA. I haven't read anything but what has been posted, what I mean by that is I haven't bothered to read the decision on any claim she made. That doesn't concern me. What does concern me is an PR effort to say, THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T GET TO YOUR CLAIM. I have no sympathy for the backlog THE VA CREATED FOR THEMSELVES. To say she had no new material, means nothing to me, SINCE WE KNOW HOW THE VA CAN GET THE ORIGINAL MATERIAL wrong. I have no problem with calling a spade a spade, but I do have a problem with shedding blame. This Veteran is not the problem in my opinion. I know, I went through the TAP seminar in 2006, I know what the VA rep does. He/She goes through your records and cherry picks the things that would cost the VA the least and tells you submit this. Well ten years later you find out things from talking with others, and then you find out the VA and their REPS are in it for themselves, not you. I guess my point is this, IT ALL GOES BACK TO THE VA. If the personnel they sent to the seminars weren't in it for themselves, and they did their job in with integrity, instead of greed, then maybe this could have been avoided. I can't for the life of me, find one reason to feel bad for the VA in this issue.

Well, having read your post, I can see that it would do no good for me to point out the obvious. But, I'll try, once more:

And, she did this (filing to re-open) without ANY new or material evidence for ANY of these claimed disabilities, thereby making moot the point of re-opening her claims!

She wasted her time and the time that the VA COULD HAVE BEEN helping decide a more deserving veteran's claim.

And, when you say:

"I know, I went through the TAP seminar in 2006, I know what the VA rep does. He/She goes through your records and cherry picks the things that would cost the VA the least and tells you submit this."

it causes me to wonder "which VA rep" you are referring to?

But, as I said, it would do no good to question your antipathy toward the VA.

Now, if you are referring to a Veterans Service Officer in your posting........................well, I suppose that that would be different, wouldn't it?

BTW, no one was "feeling bad for the VA", but, instead, we were "feeling bad" for the veterans who had to wait in line, behind this person that filed all these claims. They obviously had to wait until this persons claims were adjudicated BEFORE their claims were handled. Didn't they?

Edited February 19, 2010 by LarryJ

[Vync]

That's what I call a shotgun claim