Hoe To Get A Lawyer Anytime From Day One

[Guest elizabeth]

Hi i just want to state va will not let you get a lawyer before it goes to bva WRONG YOU CAN NOT HIRE A LAWYER FOR YOURSELF BUT someone can hire a lawyer for you they and you must sign a statment you are not paying them anything so you can have a lawyer from the first day you file a claim ELIZABETH :(

[Berta]

The phone number posted here regarding Mr. John Leonard traces back to mlippman@veteranslaw.com.

The only John Leonard I found was a Colorado attorney who specializes in commercial transactions .

Mark Lippman has represented vets in about 15 cases at the BVA-over an eight year period - so far I have found 5 remands and one Cue claim denied.

I dont have the time to see if any succeeded.

At CAVC neither Mr. Lippman nor Mr. Leonard appear as listed practitioners.

Regardless-and again I do not have the time to check this all out----

This issue began with an initial post by Elizabeth regarding a CUE claim her husband had filed.

I suggest that anyone interested can read the CUE claim that Mr. Lippman , from the phone number she posted, represented the veteran on and

it is one more example of how a CUE claim can fail.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp00/files2/0018772.txt

The veteran was attempting to get retro on an unappealed 1974 decision.

It is significant to note the BVA decision in part:

"In this case, the veteran has alleged that an August 30, 1974

rating decision's denial of service connection for anxiety

neurosis contained CUE. He contends that the evidence of

record at the time showed that he had loss of memory due to a

motorcycle accident during service, and that a VA examination

in August 1974 showed that "injuries to the head" were

residual to the in-service motorcycle accident. He further

contends that a VA compensation examination conducted in

August 1974 shows he was diagnosed with anxiety neurosis, and

that the RO denied this diagnosis. "

however:"

After a review of the evidence that existed at the time of

the August 1974 rating decision, the Board finds that the

weight of the evidence does not support the veteran's claim

of CUE in the August 1974 rating decision. With regard to

the veteran's contention that the evidence of record at the

time showed that he had loss of memory due to a motorcycle

accident during service, the evidence of record only shows

that the veteran reported at service separation that he had

memory loss due to a motorcycle accident. The clinical

findings were that the veteran was psychiatrically normal,

and the service separation examination did not include a

medical nexus opinion relating current complaints of memory

loss to the motorcycle accident. With regard to the

veteran's contention that the August 1974 VA examination

showed that "injuries to the head" were residual to the in-

service motorcycle accident, that examination only noted the

veteran's history of being nervous since the accident, but

the examiner did not offer a medical nexus opinion to relate

the diagnosed mild anxiety neurosis to the in-service

motorcycle accident. The Court has held that evidence which

is simply information recorded by a medical examiner,

unenhanced by any additional medical comment by that

examiner, does not constitute competent medical evidence.

See LeShore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995). "

The CUE claim was denied, but still excellent example of what is and what is not a valid CUE claim.

[Guest elizabeth]

The phone number posted here regarding Mr. John Leonard traces back to mlippman@veteranslaw.com.

The only John Leonard I found was a Colorado attorney who specializes in commercial transactions .

Mark Lippman has represented vets in about 15 cases at the BVA-over an eight year period - so far I have found 5 remands and one Cue claim denied.

I dont have the time to see if any succeeded.

At CAVC neither Mr. Lippman nor Mr. Leonard appear as listed practitioners.

Regardless-and again I do not have the time to check this all out----

This issue began with an initial post by Elizabeth regarding a CUE claim her husband had filed.

I suggest that anyone interested can read the CUE claim that Mr. Lippman , from the phone number she posted, represented the veteran on and

it is one more example of how a CUE claim can fail.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp00/files2/0018772.txt

The veteran was attempting to get retro on an unappealed 1974 decision.

It is significant to note the BVA decision in part:

"In this case, the veteran has alleged that an August 30, 1974

rating decision's denial of service connection for anxiety

neurosis contained CUE. He contends that the evidence of

record at the time showed that he had loss of memory due to a

motorcycle accident during service, and that a VA examination

in August 1974 showed that "injuries to the head" were

residual to the in-service motorcycle accident. He further

contends that a VA compensation examination conducted in

August 1974 shows he was diagnosed with anxiety neurosis, and

that the RO denied this diagnosis. "

however:"

After a review of the evidence that existed at the time of

the August 1974 rating decision, the Board finds that the

weight of the evidence does not support the veteran's claim

of CUE in the August 1974 rating decision. With regard to

the veteran's contention that the evidence of record at the

time showed that he had loss of memory due to a motorcycle

accident during service, the evidence of record only shows

that the veteran reported at service separation that he had

memory loss due to a motorcycle accident. The clinical

findings were that the veteran was psychiatrically normal,

and the service separation examination did not include a

medical nexus opinion relating current complaints of memory

loss to the motorcycle accident. With regard to the

veteran's contention that the August 1974 VA examination

showed that "injuries to the head" were residual to the in-

service motorcycle accident, that examination only noted the

veteran's history of being nervous since the accident, but

the examiner did not offer a medical nexus opinion to relate

the diagnosed mild anxiety neurosis to the in-service

motorcycle accident. The Court has held that evidence which

is simply information recorded by a medical examiner,

unenhanced by any additional medical comment by that

examiner, does not constitute competent medical evidence.

See LeShore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995). "

The CUE claim was denied, but still excellent example of what is and what is not a valid CUE claim.

[Guest elizabeth]

The phone number posted here regarding Mr. John Leonard traces back to mlippman@veteranslaw.com.

The only John Leonard I found was a Colorado attorney who specializes in commercial transactions .

Mark Lippman has represented vets in about 15 cases at the BVA-over an eight year period - so far I have found 5 remands and one Cue claim denied.

I dont have the time to see if any succeeded.

At CAVC neither Mr. Lippman nor Mr. Leonard appear as listed practitioners.

Regardless-and again I do not have the time to check this all out----

This issue began with an initial post by Elizabeth regarding a CUE claim her husband had filed.

I suggest that anyone interested can read the CUE claim that Mr. Lippman , from the phone number she posted, represented the veteran on and

it is one more example of how a CUE claim can fail.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp00/files2/0018772.txt

The veteran was attempting to get retro on an unappealed 1974 decision.

It is significant to note the BVA decision in part:

"In this case, the veteran has alleged that an August 30, 1974

rating decision's denial of service connection for anxiety

neurosis contained CUE. He contends that the evidence of

record at the time showed that he had loss of memory due to a

motorcycle accident during service, and that a VA examination

in August 1974 showed that "injuries to the head" were

residual to the in-service motorcycle accident. He further

contends that a VA compensation examination conducted in

August 1974 shows he was diagnosed with anxiety neurosis, and

that the RO denied this diagnosis. "

however:"

After a review of the evidence that existed at the time of

the August 1974 rating decision, the Board finds that the

weight of the evidence does not support the veteran's claim

of CUE in the August 1974 rating decision. With regard to

the veteran's contention that the evidence of record at the

time showed that he had loss of memory due to a motorcycle

accident during service, the evidence of record only shows

that the veteran reported at service separation that he had

memory loss due to a motorcycle accident. The clinical

findings were that the veteran was psychiatrically normal,

and the service separation examination did not include a

medical nexus opinion relating current complaints of memory

loss to the motorcycle accident. With regard to the

veteran's contention that the August 1974 VA examination

showed that "injuries to the head" were residual to the in-

service motorcycle accident, that examination only noted the

veteran's history of being nervous since the accident, but

the examiner did not offer a medical nexus opinion to relate

the diagnosed mild anxiety neurosis to the in-service

motorcycle accident. The Court has held that evidence which

is simply information recorded by a medical examiner,

unenhanced by any additional medical comment by that

examiner, does not constitute competent medical evidence.

See LeShore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995). "

The CUE claim was denied, but still excellent example of what is and what is not a valid CUE claim.

[Guest elizabeth]

The phone number posted here regarding Mr. John Leonard traces back to mlippman@veteranslaw.com.

The only John Leonard I found was a Colorado attorney who specializes in commercial transactions .

Mark Lippman has represented vets in about 15 cases at the BVA-over an eight year period - so far I have found 5 remands and one Cue claim denied.

I dont have the time to see if any succeeded.

At CAVC neither Mr. Lippman nor Mr. Leonard appear as listed practitioners.

Regardless-and again I do not have the time to check this all out----

This issue began with an initial post by Elizabeth regarding a CUE claim her husband had filed.

I suggest that anyone interested can read the CUE claim that Mr. Lippman , from the phone number she posted, represented the veteran on and

it is one more example of how a CUE claim can fail.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp00/files2/0018772.txt

The veteran was attempting to get retro on an unappealed 1974 decision.

It is significant to note the BVA decision in part:

"In this case, the veteran has alleged that an August 30, 1974

rating decision's denial of service connection for anxiety

neurosis contained CUE. He contends that the evidence of

record at the time showed that he had loss of memory due to a

motorcycle accident during service, and that a VA examination

in August 1974 showed that "injuries to the head" were

residual to the in-service motorcycle accident. He further

contends that a VA compensation examination conducted in

August 1974 shows he was diagnosed with anxiety neurosis, and

that the RO denied this diagnosis. "

however:"

After a review of the evidence that existed at the time of

the August 1974 rating decision, the Board finds that the

weight of the evidence does not support the veteran's claim

of CUE in the August 1974 rating decision. With regard to

the veteran's contention that the evidence of record at the

time showed that he had loss of memory due to a motorcycle

accident during service, the evidence of record only shows

that the veteran reported at service separation that he had

memory loss due to a motorcycle accident. The clinical

findings were that the veteran was psychiatrically normal,

and the service separation examination did not include a

medical nexus opinion relating current complaints of memory

loss to the motorcycle accident. With regard to the

veteran's contention that the August 1974 VA examination

showed that "injuries to the head" were residual to the in-

service motorcycle accident, that examination only noted the

veteran's history of being nervous since the accident, but

the examiner did not offer a medical nexus opinion to relate

the diagnosed mild anxiety neurosis to the in-service

motorcycle accident. The Court has held that evidence which

is simply information recorded by a medical examiner,

unenhanced by any additional medical comment by that

examiner, does not constitute competent medical evidence.

See LeShore v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 406, 409 (1995). "

The CUE claim was denied, but still excellent example of what is and what is not a valid CUE claim.

[Guest elizabeth]

Hi i just want to state va will not let you get a lawyer before it goes to bva WRONG YOU CAN NOT HIRE A LAWYER FOR YOURSELF BUT someone can hire a lawyer for you they and you must sign a statment you are not paying them anything so you can have a lawyer from the first day you file a claim ELIZABETH :(

[bigvic]

My point exactly Berta... Liz just does not realize how many Lawyers I have contacted over the last twenty years trying to fight my case. Also, as a poor black man I never stood a chance anyway. I had to finally buckle down and do the work myself but first I had to find a VA doctor willing to help me take that next step. I thank my lucky stars for meeting that person working for the VA because I'd be in the same boat and pain that I was in for so many years with nothing to show for it.