Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Bva Remand Cue And Nod Intertwined

Rate this question


pacmanx1

Question

  • Moderator

The Board remanded the claims, in part, in December 2008 so the RO could address motion for revision based on CUE in October 1998 and November 2003 rating decisions. The RO issued an October 2009 rating decision which denied both motions. The appellant then submitted a November 2009 Form 9, in which he reiterated an argument that the earlier determinations overlooked his IBS and assigned him an incorrect rating, and failed to conduct appropriate development in 2003, and improperly assigning a 30 percent rating for psoriasis. The Board finds that the appellant has disagreed with the October 2009 rating decision as to the determinations regarding CUE and evinced a desire for appellant review in using a VA Form 9. Remand for issuance of a Statement of the Case on the CUE motions is warranted. See Manlincon, supra.

The appellant's earlier effective date claims would be render moot if revision based on CUE is granted. Thus, they are intertwined with the CUE motions. See Harris, supra. The board defers again of those claims at this time.

Please keep in mind that I am just trying to get an earlier effective date of both issues. VA had the evidence in my file but failed to review my entire file. Since I was already awarded the increase I am just seeking to correct Va's' mistake in not reviewing my file. It sounds like BVA agrees with my claim but there are other issues that have to be address also. I am just interested in your thoughts on this part for now. As I said, once the remand comes available, I will post it and ask for more opinions.

Edited by pacmanx1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 15
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder

The Board remanded the claims, in part, in December 2008 so the RO could address motion for revision based on CUE in October 1998 and November 2003 rating decisions. The RO issued an October 2009 rating decision which denied both motions. The appellant then submitted a November 2009 Form 9, in which he reiterated an argument that the earlier determinations overlooked his IBS and assigned him an incorrect rating, and failed to conduct appropriate development in 2003, and improperly assigning a 30 percent rating for psoriasis. The Board finds that the appellant has disagreed with the October 2009 rating decision as to the determinations regarding CUE and evinced a desire for appellant review in using a VA Form 9. Remand for issuance of a Statement of the Case on the CUE motions is warranted. See Manlincon, supra.

The appellant's earlier effective date claims would be render moot if revision based on CUE is granted. Thus, they are intertwined with the CUE motions. See Harris, supra. The board defers again of those claims at this time.

Please keep in mind that I am just trying to get an earlier effective date of both issues. VA had the evidence in my file but failed to review my entire file. Since I was already awarded the increase I am just seeking to correct Va's' mistake in not reviewing my file. It sounds like BVA agrees with my claim but there are other issues that have to be address also. I am just interested in your thoughts on this part for now. As I said, once the remand comes available, I will post it and ask for more opinions.

I'll post something intelligible as soon as we determine what the remand has to say. (note that I said "something intelligible", but not necessarily intelligent..........)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

I'll post something intelligible as soon as we determine what the remand has to say. (note that I said "something intelligible", but not necessarily intelligent..........)

LarryJ, I know all too well that it is not easy to give your opinion if you are not aware of all the facts but did you read both June 4, 2010 and June 7, 2010 post. I think June 7, 2010 post may help but if not then my drugs are kicking in and I can't explain it the way I want to but it still seems that BVA understands, at least I hope so. The only thing I don't understand is why the judge remand it again and not make a decision on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try to read the info again tomorrow-Pete922 in the other posts - I too got confused as to those posts but was in the sun for many hours everyday lately until it rained so maybe that is why I am confused.

nope not sun bathing or fishing-just working out there and it was HOT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use