More Bradley Vs Peake

[Philip Rogers]

john, the VA must state in the "reasons and bases" whether they considered HB. If no statement is made then it's a gross procedural error or CUE, depending on the date of the decision.

pr

You know the VA is supposed to consider Housebound when a vet gets 100% schedular, but how often does the decision say "We considered and denied "S" due to the fact the vet is not housebound"? I think the VA usually just says nothing unless the vet claims HB and then they will come back and say they considered and rejected it. If you get 100% and the VA never says they considered HB how can you prove they did or didn't consider it? The VA does the same thing with evidence.

[john999]

Phil

That's good to know. In light of Bradley would this be true of those who get total rating due to IU?

[carlie]

John,

I don't think it would hold because IU is not really total though it is compensated as 100 %.

Right now I'm sick and this is over my banging head.

[john999]

Carlie

I hope you feel better. With VA regs it is like pulling on a string. You never know where it might go.

[Philip Rogers]

john, that's hard to say but in light of Bradley it could be. I see that the VA should readjudicate all those claims but, we know, that's unlikely to happen.

pr

I'm not a lawyer but I'd like to play one, on TV.

Phil

That's good to know. In light of Bradley would this be true of those who get total rating due to IU?

[broncovet]

I agree with PR in that I dont see the Va readjuticating every 100% award, to determine if the Veteran is also eligible to SMC Housebound, based on Bradley VS Peake.

However, I can not see why a Veteran who has recently (after Bradley vs Peake) been awarded TDIU/100% WITHOUT being considered for SMC housebound, can not consider filing a CUE, as it would appear to me to be statutorily required.

IMHO, if a Veteran has been rated TDIU, he probably ALSO has at least one disability at 60% or above. In a like manner, if a Veteran is rated at 100%, he is also likely TDIU in most cases, because I dont see the VA handing out"totals" like they are candy to children. In order to get either 100% or TDIU, there is usually a " substantial decrease in earning capacity" demonstrable by being unemployed/unemployable. Vets who are working rarely get 100%.

Part of it is this: When a Vet is finally awarded 100%/TDIU, he has probably been in "survival" mode for several years. He/she is so happy that he finaly got 100%/TDIU, he is interested in celebrating, not in filing NODS. He may not even be "getting" the big picture here.

This Vet was probably desperate, destitute, and $32,000 per year seems like a lot of money to a person facing homelessness, especially with some inevitable retro. But if he were young, college educated, healthy, like he was when he entered the military, 32k per year is, well, an insult. One of the "paper pushers" (VA employee/raters) on another site reported he earned more than 100k per year at the Va. Now, why is it that paper pushers deserve 3 times more money than Veterans who lost all their earning capacity due to service to their country?

Also, remember this: This 100% Vet was awarded benefits for a reason. He probably has to hire people to do things he used to do himself. He is statutaroliy entitled to housebound, so why shouldnt he get it? Vets, you dont need to settle for less than what you deserve because the VA "beat you up" for 10 years to get your benefits.