Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Cue, Reconsideration, Or Nod?

Rate this question


Vync

Question

  • Content Curator/HadIt.com Elder

I recently was awarded an increase in my TMJ rating from 10% to 20% based on reduced range of motion.

My C&P exam (03/2010) and previous dental exam (12/2009) both indicated I had limited lateral excursion of 3 mm, but the rater indicated it was 33 mm. I should have received an additional and separate 10% rating for limited lateral excursion.

What is my best option here? CUE, reconsideration, or NOD?

Here is the VA regulation:

§4.150 - Schedule of Ratings - Dental and Oral Conditions

9905 Temporomandibular articulation, limited motion of:

Inter-incisal range:

0 to 10 mm 40

11 to 20 mm 30

21 to 30 mm 20

31 to 40 mm 10

Range of lateral excursion:

0 to 4 mm 10

Note: Ratings for limited inter-incisal movement shall not be combined with ratings for limited lateral excursion

"If it's stupid but works, then it isn't stupid."
- From Murphy's Laws of Combat

Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert, so use at own risk and/or consult a qualified professional representative. Please refer to existing VA laws, regulations, and policies for the most up to date information.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

4 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

I recently was awarded an increase in my TMJ rating from 10% to 20% based on reduced range of motion.

My C&P exam (03/2010) and previous dental exam (12/2009) both indicated I had limited lateral excursion of 3 mm, but the rater indicated it was 33 mm. I should have received an additional and separate 10% rating for limited lateral excursion.

What is my best option here? CUE, reconsideration, or NOD?

Here is the VA regulation:

§4.150 - Schedule of Ratings - Dental and Oral Conditions

9905 Temporomandibular articulation, limited motion of:

Inter-incisal range:

0 to 10 mm 40

11 to 20 mm 30

21 to 30 mm 20

31 to 40 mm 10

Range of lateral excursion:

0 to 4 mm 10

Note: Ratings for limited inter-incisal movement shall not be combined with ratings for limited lateral excursion

I think you should file a NOD and bring this info to the raters attention. I recommend a DRO hearing so you can present and explain your case.

JMO,

Bergie

Edited by *Bergie*

As a combat veteran, or any veteran for that matter!!!

If you thought the fighting was over when you came home, got out, or when the politicians said it was over.

Welcome to the real fight, welcome to VA claims!!!

"Just sayin"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

The standards you have to meet for a CUE are so great any other available option is better. If your only option is a CUE then that is what you use, but only then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would Request a Reconsideration.Or you could ask them to CUE themselves.(or both)

Mark your calendar for the NOD deadline in case they don't act on it during the year time frame for the NOD.

Send the request with a proof of mailing and put on the letter and envelope Attention to: and then put the initials that appear in the upper right hand code next to reply to.

State exactly what you told us and tell them to rate you per the Schedule of Ratings enclosed (and enclose the reg you put here)and copy of the medical evidence (My C&P exam (03/2010) and previous dental exam (12/2009) both indicated I had limited lateral excursion of 3 mm, but the rater indicated it was 33 mm.)

This could be a mere typo from the rater and if it is they could quickly correct it.

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS - a GREAT reason why everyone should request copies of all C & P exams.

If a C & P exam says one thing and an SOC says something completely different this is a clear and unmistakable error on the VA's part.

Just by calling their attention to this error should get it fixed either way you choose to go.

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

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


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • kidva earned a badge
      First Post
    • kidva earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Lebro earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use