Smc S

[john999]

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.

[Philip Rogers]

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.

[john999]

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.

[Philip Rogers]

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

[Berta]

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.

[Berta]

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 October 30, 2010 by Berta