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

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Cue Yes Or No ?

Rate this question


4myboys

Question

To: Department of Veterans Affairs

Decision Review Officer

In regards to Clear and Unmistakable Error found in the original rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of ____________; the following Code of Federal Regulations was not, as required by law, applied:

TITLE 38--PENSIONS, BONUSES, AND VETERANS' RELIEF CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS PART 4--SCHEDULE FOR RATING DISABILITIES--Table of Contents Subpart A--General Policy in Rating Sec. 4.1 Essentials of evaluative rating. It states: both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history. Sec. 4.2 Interpretation of examination reports. Different examiners, at different times, will not describe the same disability in the same language. Features of the disability which must have persisted unchanged may be overlooked or a change for the better or worse may not be accurately appreciated or described. It is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination in the light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. Each disability must be considered from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. If a diagnosis is not supported by the findings on the examination report or if the report does not contain sufficient detail, it is incumbent upon the rating board to return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes.

At the time of initial rating evaluation, September 1999, all medical records including SMR's, MRI's, EMG's and numerous pages of Doctors reports/evaluations/diagnosis' were in the hands of the rater.

Veteran's Application for Compensation or Pension dated January 7th, 1999

Nature and History of Disabilities Section 17.

SCD's: Ruptured & Herniated Discs, Sciatic Nerve Damage, Degenerative Disc Disease, Dehydration of Lower Lumbar, Migraine Headaches, Severe Chronic Back Pain, Spasms, Chronic Sinusitis & Bronchitis, and all other SCD's as noted in SMR's.

Sciatic Nerve Damage was specifically requested as part of my reason and basis for compensation.

1999 Rating decision Reasons and Bases:

Service connection for central disc bulge L5-S1 has been established as directly related to military service. This condition is evaluated as 40% disabling from April 22nd 1998.

Next paragraph:

August 1997 and MRI revealed TWO disc bulges, the largest one at L5-S1 and contact but did not compress nerve roots….

(In the same paragraph diagnosed sciatic neuropathy defined)

Straight leg raising was positive on the left at 20 degrees with radicular pain from the lower back to the left posterior buttock and left gastrocnemius muscle. X rays showed Degenerative Disc Disease at L5-S1 with acquired mild spinal canal stenosis and the appearance of compression of S1 nerve roots.

Clear and Unmistakable Error in FACT recorded in rating decision per CFR 38 Part 4.2. Section 4.2 in CFR Interpretation of examination reports: It is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination in the light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present.

Impression as taken from the actual MRI findings report dated August 11th, 1997.

1. Degenerative Disc Disease at L5-S1 with acquired mild spinal canal stenosis and the appearance of compression of the S1 nerve root, left greater than right.

Also in record to support continued and unremitting Sciatic Nerve damage was EMG findings dated January 14th 1999.

EMG Findings:

There were moderate chronic neurogenic changes in the form of poor activation and increased duration of amplitude of many to all the remaining motor units in the left flexor digitorum longus, extensor digitorum brevis and semitendinosus muscles. There were mild to moderate neurogenic changes in the left tibialis anterior muscle.

Impression:

EMG and nerve conduction studies of the lower extremities and related paraspinal muscles reveal changes suggestive of left L5 Radiculopathy. This is moderate in degree of electricity.

Service Record documents from:

Neurosurgery Clinic dated January 9th 1998.

Diagnosis: Chronic Back Pain/Herniated L5-S1

Left S1 Radiculopathy Left Leg

Findings from Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings:

Diagnosis and Ratings:

Category 1:

  • Chronic Back Pain/ Herniated L5-S1

    Category 2:

    • Left S1 Radiculopathy, Left Leg related to diagnosis 1.

1. The September 1999 rating decision contains clear and

unmistakable error in not only ignoring evidence but denying entitlement to service connection for Sciatic Nueropathy as part of the original diagnosis and rating of: CFR 38 Part 4 dated 1998-1999: 5293 Intervertebral disc syndrome: Pronounced; with persistent symptoms compatible with sciatic neuropathy with characteristic pain and demonstrable muscle spasm, absent ankle jerk, or other neurological findings appropriate to site of diseased disc, little intermittent relief rating of 60%. CFR 38 Sec. 4.21 Application of rating schedule. In view of the number of atypical instances it is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified. Findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability there from, and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will, however, be expected in all instances. Based on the requirements of the Law at the time of decision and evidence of a Clear and Unmistakable Error, I am entitled to a retroactive date to initial claim January 7th, 1999 with an effective date of April 22, 1998 for compensation at the 60% level.<BR style=mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

Edited by Tbird
Removed Personal Identifying Information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 16
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

There was a change in the Schedule sometime around then.

I can see where a poor decision was made in regards to interpretation of

medical evidence by a decision maker, but this may not rise to a claim of CUE.

Also, what 38 CFR or 38 USC reg are you relying on,that would support an earlier effective date of April 22, 1998,

versus when the date of the claim made was January 7, 1999 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

If there is any hint of reweighing the evidence you CUE dies. Reweighing or reinterpreting evidence used in a decision won't be a CUE from what I have learned. If the VA excludes evidence in a rating decision then you may have a CUE. The VA may come back and say that the evidence excluded would have not changed the decision anyway. Reasonable minds have to agree the evidence excluded would have altered the decision. The only reasonable minds considered are VA minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CFR's regarding the spine were not changes until 2002. I pulled all CFRs for decision rendered at the time of my rating. 1998-1999

CUE law states:If the evidence establishes CUE, an undebatable, outcome-determinative error, the prior decision must be reversed or revised, 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109A(a), 7111(a), and the decision constituting the reversal or revision “has the same effect as if the decision had been made on the date of the prior decision,” 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109A(b), 7111(b).

The error wasn't mear interpretation. It was factual error. MRI's, EMGs, exams etc. all have clearly stated diagnosis and findings of Sciatic Nueropathy and compression of the L5-S1 nerve roots. No where does it remotely state maybe, could have, possible has, doesn't have, etc.

(Please note I am preparing for my DRO hearing. Your questions, comments, and opinions, whether agreed upon or not, are extremely helpful for me to research and respond to my CUE claim. I am not attacking responses to any member here, only pleading my case and prepairing for responses I will recieve from the DRO. so thank you!)

SORRY I posted this in the wrong forum. Overlooked the CUE forum !!!

There was a change in the Schedule sometime around then.

I can see where a poor decision was made in regards to interpretation of

medical evidence by a decision maker, but this may not rise to a claim of CUE.

Also, what 38 CFR or 38 USC reg are you relying on,that would support an earlier effective date of April 22, 1998,

versus when the date of the claim made was January 7, 1999 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see where you could have easily filed a NOD and requested an increase

but I still do not see an absolute CUE - I do see where there could be

a poor decision made.

I feel you need to state your claim for CUE, much more clearly and simply,

for your DRO Hearing.

JMHO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

4my boys

It looks like you have done a thorough job so far. Frankly, I think you are right. It is CUE when the RO FAILS to "sympathetically read ALL the VEterans Evidence", because that is required by law..not any judgement call.

Roberson vs Principii states: "Congress has mandated that the VA is “to fully and sympathetically develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before deciding it on the merits.” Hodge, 155 F.3d at 1362 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 100-963, at 13 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5782, 5795). We see no basis for applying a different standard to a CUE claim, and we hold that the DVA is thus required to consider a CUE claim using the standard of Hodge."

If You Read Roberson, you will know that the evidence did not "undebatedly" establish the claimants entitlement to TDIU, in fact, there was both evidence that supported and that refuted the Veterans claim. Still, the VA is REQUIRED to CONSIDER the Veteran for TDIU, even tho there was disagreement to whether or not the VEteran was entitled.

The strict Cue standard does not get the VA off the hook, and they still must sympathetically read the VEterans claim and decide on its merits.

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