carlie Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 CAVC - THOMAS P. CHOTTA, APPELLANT Decided March 11, 2008 A 50% disability rating for PTSD effective from September 1947 http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Chotta_05-3204.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vperl Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 CAVC - THOMAS P. CHOTTA, APPELLANT Decided March 11, 2008 A 50% disability rating for PTSD effective from September 1947 http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Chotta_05-3204.pdf ************* "remand" is ? REMAND When an appellate court sends an appealed case back to the trial court for further action, the case is said to be remanded. This usually happens if the trial judge has made an error which requires a new trial or hearing. For example, assume that a trial court refuses to allow a party to introduce certain evidence (believing it to be inadmissible under the hearsay rule). If the appellate court decides that the evidence should have been admitted and that the exclusion of the evidence was prejudicial to the party offering it, the appellate court would likely remand the case for new trial and order the evidence introduced Guess that means another hearing ? will the Vet survive ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlie Posted March 1, 2010 Author Share Posted March 1, 2010 (edited) Vperl, As stated, "In May 2001, the only issue on appeal before the Board was the assertion of CUE with respect to the 1946 and 1947 decisions, and the Board determined there was no CUE. R. at 354-60. On appeal to this Court in March 2003, the parties agreed to a joint motion to terminate the appeal and stipulated that the Secretary would grant service connection for PTSD, effective from September 27, 1947. R. at 374-80. The parties also agreed that the appropriate disability rating would be determined by the agency of original jurisdiction subject to the right of appeal, and the Court granted the parties' motion. R. at 378, 382. In assigning the disability rating for the appellant's PTSD condition in June 2003, the RO considered that the appellant was hospitalized at a VA facility on September 19, 1947, for an "anxiety reaction." R. at 390. The RO noted that the claims folder was devoid of any medical evidence related to the claimed anxiety until 1997. Id. The RO stated that it could not, at that point in time, reconstruct valid evaluations between 1947 and 1997. Id. The RO granted a 50% disability rating for PTSD effective from September 1947 until January 1999, and a 70% disability rating from January 20, 1999. R. at 400. After the appellant filed an NOD with the RO's June 2003 rating decision, VA issued a Statement of the Case (SOC), explaining why the appellant was not entitled to an evaluation greater than 50% between 1947 and 1999. (Blah Blah etc...) REMANDED for adjudication consistent with this opinion" The remand is only to see if he's entitled to a higher percentage. carlie Edited March 1, 2010 by carlie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Content Curator/HadIt.com Elder Vync Posted March 1, 2010 Content Curator/HadIt.com Elder Share Posted March 1, 2010 Wow, that Veteran has been caught up in bureaucratic red tape for quite a long time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HadIt.com Elder john999 Posted March 1, 2010 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted March 1, 2010 The vet's records are lost so the VA says they can't make a correct determination of his ptsd rate. If he has any records of combat from WWII why should he not get benefit of doubt? I bet thousands of older vets have died while the VA played these games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vperl Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 The vet's records are lost so the VA says they can't make a correct determination of his ptsd rate. If he has any records of combat from WWII why should he not get benefit of doubt? I bet thousands of older vets have died while the VA played these games. ****************************** gee, I am so surprised they dragged their feet, and let tens of thousands of WW11 guys die off, who'd thunk that? I gunna screw them, I plan not to die.....ever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gp747 Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 ****************************** gee, I am so surprised they dragged their feet, and let tens of thousands of WW11 guys die off, who'd thunk that? I gunna screw them, I plan not to die.....ever... wow! i was born in 1947, good luck !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
carlie
CAVC - THOMAS P. CHOTTA, APPELLANT
Decided March 11, 2008
A 50% disability rating for PTSD effective from September 1947
http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/Chotta_05-3204.pdf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
4
3
1
1
Popular Days
Mar 1
9
Mar 2
1
Top Posters For This Question
vperl 4 posts
carlie 3 posts
john999 1 post
Vync 1 post
Popular Days
Mar 1 2010
9 posts
Mar 2 2010
1 post
9 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now