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

     

Smc S

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • HadIt.com Elder

I got the paperwork today on the VA's decision on my SMC "S". They called it a CUE. I guess it was a CUE since they should have granted the SMC when they became aware that I was IU plus 60%. I did not claim it as a CUE. They sent a copy to my lawyer who is doing my CUE going back to 1971. I think he might get mad that I cut him out of this, but it was my money and I did not need him since this was not an issue we were dealing with at the time I hired him. Get the CUE claims out since every IU vet plus 60% has a claim. You know before this I had IU plus 5 ten percent ratings. It was not until I got 60% for the heart that I got the SMC eligibilty according to the VA. I am way over IU plus 60%. Do you think my lawyer has legitimate gripe? He is taking my first CUE to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • HadIt.com Elder

I wouldn't be surprised if he wants and receives a portion of this current award. He's your atty of record and should be entitled to a portion, if this claim was filed after he became your atty, unless you have an agreement that is specific to your other claim. jmo

pr

I got the paperwork today on the VA's decision on my SMC "S". They called it a CUE. I guess it was a CUE since they should have granted the SMC when they became aware that I was IU plus 60%. I did not claim it as a CUE. They sent a copy to my lawyer who is doing my CUE going back to 1971. I think he might get mad that I cut him out of this, but it was my money and I did not need him since this was not an issue we were dealing with at the time I hired him. Get the CUE claims out since every IU vet plus 60% has a claim. You know before this I had IU plus 5 ten percent ratings. It was not until I got 60% for the heart that I got the SMC eligibilty according to the VA. I am way over IU plus 60%. Do you think my lawyer has legitimate gripe? He is taking my first CUE to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

He had an opportunity to represent me on the condition that resulted in the "S" award, but all he wanted to represent me on was the CUE claim that involved my original rating in 1973. This is the claim that involves the real payoff and the only one I have ever discussed with him. He has represented me on this 1973 CUE since 2008. If he makes a fuss I would probably pay him something since he has worked for me. I got all the "S" money since I filed for it and provided the Fast Letter dealing with Bradley v Peake. He does not even know what that is I am sure. I suppose I should have let him file the "S" for me but it was so clear and so easy for me to do it. I never considered my lawyer in this, but he may say something to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

john, I know it was easy and you did it yourself and that morally he shouldn't get anything for it but most lawyers would want something. I'm sure he got a copy of the award letter, as the atty of record. If he bills you I'd pay it. On the other hand, since he'll be paid, by the EAJA, if he loses, he may not bill you, because that might compromise that payment. Just me thinking outloud!

pr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John - I almost hired Karl (long story)for my SMC CUE claim and decided not to.

He switched me over to his wife -who is very very good in my opinion-they both are- but then they sent me a fee agreement and told me to sign it but leave the dates blank.

They were very interested in my AO pending claim but the NOD had been filed prior to the lawyer for vets regs.It had nothing to do with the SMC accrued CUE claim.

I was not going to share a dime of that AO claim with anyone.

So I had my agreement clarified and specified to solely involve the SMC issue.

But they still asked me to sign an agreement without dating it.

I changed my mind on hiring them.There is more to this not needed to put here- Again I stress that these are very competent lawyers-bt I would not sign an undated agreement and cannot understand why they would even ask me to.

They certainly seem to understand CUE but I would never sign an agreement about anything without a date to my signature.

I would check the agreement you signed with them.

Your SMC claim did not even require a NOD filed on any denial and the lawyer for vets regs require that a NOD be filed after June 20, 2007 so I dont think Karl would be legally able to bill you for your SMC award.

BTW= legal fees charged to a vet , that are part of a VA decision, can be appealed. There is a five point criteria from the VA as to properly charged legal fees.

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

Although this is a pre-lawyer for vet reg decision, it bears out my point:

"As the evidence

available clearly demonstrates the intent of the attorney to

collect a fee from past-due benefits for the work unrelated

to the veteran's claim, as well as for a claim for which he

performed no documented work following a final decision by

the Board, the Board finds that the attorney fees at issue

are excessive and unreasonable, and should be reduced to zero

(0).

ORDER

No fee may be charged pursuant to the undated fee agreement

for services rendered on the veteran's behalf prior to May

17, 2000, related to the claim of entitlement to service

connection for a heart disorder. As to services rendered

after May 17, 2000, related to the claim of entitlement to

service connection for a heart disorder, any fee in excess of

$0.00 is unreasonable."

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp01/files02/0111045.txt

If I had signed a undated agreement (my AO claim was awarded last year and the retro (after a battle) was awarded to me a few months ago) this would have set up the SMC CUE as a direct SC SMC scenario and not under 1151 (the basis of the CUE I filed).

The AO award subsumed the 1151 matter.The CUED SMC disabilities are now direct SC disabilities.

Also the new IHD regs (which I never expected to ever see in my lifetime) changed my SMC CUE completely.

VA must consider this accrued award now under the Nehmer Court order.The CUE was set for transfer to the BVA 2 months ago but correctly pulled by the VARO last month and put with my pending IHD claim.(both are on the same basis )

This CUE-now due to Nehmer-could involve even more retro than my past AO award did.

But my undated agreement-had I signed it- could also have involved a large legal fee as I do intend to succeed in my AO IHD claim which is a SMC accrued claim on same basis as what the fee agreement would have considered.

In your case, did the VA make any mention of any fee agreement at all?

If they didnt and you got the cash already- I dont see how Karl would consider billing you and I dont feel he would even try to.

VA took 8 thousand bucks out of a friend of mine's award for legal fees.It was right in his award letter with the criteria for appeal.

I found the law firm had not fulfilled the legal requirements for this fee and prepared the NOD with evidenceand legal citations.I have no status yet of the appeal.

They deserved in my opinion about 200 bucks.

I stated separately for the appeal ( and testified)that I helped the veteran succeed on his claim,not the lawyers, and I told them-with evidence-how I did it and how they failed to help him at all.I dont think they could read.

Edited by Berta

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

    • Lebro earned a badge
      First Post
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Lebro earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Sparklinger earned a badge
      First Post
  • Our picks

    • 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.   
    • Welcome to hadit!  

          There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not.  Try reading this:

      https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/

         However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.  

         When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait!  Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?"  Not once.  Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.  

          However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.  

      That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot.  There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.  

      Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.  

          Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344

       
    • Good question.   

          Maybe I can clear it up.  

          The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more.  (my paraphrase).  

      More here:

      Source:

      https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/

      NOTE:   TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY.  This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond.    If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use