tdiu What Constitutes An Inferred Claim For Iu?

[Gardener]

Can anyone tell me what would constitute an inferred claim for IU (individual unemployability)?

For example,

If one files for service connection (original service connection filing) and in the c-file there is evidence from doctor's statement "saying unemployable" and on original application for benefits (which states: "what prevents you from working? which was what was being filed for) would this be an inferred claim for IU at the time of original filing?

I was granted qualifying percentage for IU (notified 3 years after the original filing) and had not worked for quite sometime before that filing or since, then should the original rater have considered this evidence as an inferred claim for IU or not?

Gardener

[Berta]

VA infers IU if the SC rating is 70%.

Did your medical evidence that VA had warrant a 70% rating at the time of the original claim?

What did the VA say in the decision as to how they determined the effective date ?

"I was granted qualifying percentage for IU (notified 3 years after the original filing)"

I am not sure I understand the question-

Did the VA send you the TDIU form? DID you fill it out and send it back? Did they then award you TDIU?

What date did they use and why?

Did you appeal the EED and tell them of the entry as to "unemployable" ?

[Gardener]

Hi Berta,

Yes, the orginal rating was 70%. There was evidence in the c-file (including my original application which asked "what prevented me from working?: here I listed the condition that I was applying for original service connection (which was then granted at 70%). Even the C&P that was given before the rating of 70% refers to me being unemployed, along with a private doc's statement that I was unemployable due to what I applied for through the VA.

I received this original rating 3 years after filing my original application for service connection (due to an NOD filed with additional evidence proving stressor, and "promptly" filed for TDIU (application was included with the original award letter).

After filing for TDIU I was sent for a C&P and was reduced quite a bit. Then it went to the BVA and it was reversed and awarded TDIU) Then, this was sent to the AMC along with remanded issues (I already received the SSOC on the remanded issues: which are being returned to the BVA). I received a letter from the DAV last month informing me that they granted effective date only to the date of my application for TDIU (which was 3 years after they found me 70%).

I haven't received the "official" award letter as of yet, but expect it soon. I am only trying to find out if it should have gone back to my "original filing date" for service connection on the grounds of an inferred claim for IU with the evidence that was a part of my c-file before they granted the 70%.

I know it is a long story, but I want to make sure I understand if I can file for an EED on the inferred portion.

Thanks,

Gardener

[john999]

Remember 4.16B which states if a vet is unemployable due to a SC condition they he/she is entitled to IU. I interpret that to mean if you have evidence of being unemployable due to SC condition that is an inferred claim for IU. The VA may not infer IU unless you are 70%, but that is not what the regulation actually says. VBM notes a hypothetical case where vet has bad smell from SC foot condition. Social worker notes this is a bar to employment. This is an inferred claim for IU. This according to VBM.

[Pete53]

Even when you ask the VA does not always infer. That said I think that you have good evidence to get an earlier effective date

[mobie16r]

My guess on a infers claims is when you had a duction in ratings.If you are not gainful employable due to your service connected disabilities,you should qualify for IU under 4.16B eaxtra schedule.

mpbie16r

[john999]

If you are serious about inferred claims you often have to prove it should have been inferred. This is a long term project. For instance, you have evidence that shows the VA should have inferred IU 20 years ago. Now you have to go through appeals to prove what is obvious. This is what lawyers were invented for...the big money.