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

To Cue Legal Beagles-

Rate this question


Berta

Question

"In Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 246 (1994), the CAVC

held that the constructive notice rule first announced in

Bell was not applicable to decisions rendered prior to Bell

and held that where CAVC opinions formulate new

interpretations of the law subsequent to an RO decision,

those holdings cannot be the basis of a valid CUE claim.

Although the CAVC has recognized that a viable CUE claim may

be premised on the theory that the RO had failed to consider

evidence of a high probative value, the Court has made it

clear that, for such a claim to succeed as to an RO decision

issued prior to February 1990, the RO must have denied the

very existence of the evidence. See Glynn v. Brown, 6 Vet.

App. 523, 531 (1994) (CUE not found where prior decision "did

not deny the existence of an in-service injury" but denied

only that "any injury appellant may have sustained during

service did not aggravate his preexisting condition"); cf

Russell, 3 Vet. App. at 319 (RO's denial of existence of

evidence of record constitutes undebatable error).

According to VAOPGCPREC 12-95, if, subsequent to a final AOJ

denial prior to July 21, 1992, a claim is reopened and

benefits awarded, the AOJ's failure to consider evidence in

VA's possession, but not actually in the record before the

AOJ, may not form the basis for a finding of CUE. In that

instance, when a claim is subsequently reopened and benefits

are awarded, the effective date will be the date on which the

reopened claim was filed, per 38 USC 5110(a). Moreover, the

opinion notes that in VAOPGCPREC 12-94, GC had concluded

that, based on a United States Supreme Court holding,

precedential decisions of the Court of Veterans Appeals

generally do not apply retroactively to cases which have been

finally decided, but do apply to cases still open on direct

review. "

From : http://www.va.gov/vetapp04/files/0400460.txt

This is a fairly recent BVA decision-

I like this part :

"RO's denial of existence of

evidence of record constitutes undebatable error".

I have letters stated that VA denied the existence of some of Rod's records-

it may have no bearing on my claims at all-

This is my point- if the VA says that "the veterans SMRs were lost in the St Louis Fire" and then the veteran via NARA gets those SMRs themselves-(this has happened to 2 vets I helped and to some vets here)

therefore hasn't the VA comitted a CUE , as an undebatable error, by 'denying the existence of evidence?'

Did anything come along since Russell, 3 vet app, to overrule that statement in this BVA decision?

Thanks all---

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

  • Answers 4
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

4 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

Guest fla_viking

Dear Berta.

The pratice of Bell at the BVA level is to apply Bell to wipe out back pay prior to Bell. Any issue of back pay post Bell was ignored by the BVA.

I dont know why. It sure seems there are allot of court rulings in our favor. But lawyers are not even wanting to take CUE cases to the court. the lawyers said the Court had made it basicly impossibel to win a CUE claim.

It woiuld be nice to have a lawyer on line here to review our discussions and point us in the right directon.

Even though my personal case as it is written by the BVA. IS the definition of CUE. I belive I will loose my CUE case.

Terry Higgins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

Berta,

The presumption the VA is probably working on is that it is the responsibility of the veteran to prove his claim with reports and records. Thus, the fact that the VA chooses to assist in finding missing records does not relieve the veteran of his responsibility to produce the evidence necessary to advance the claim.

There should have been a requirement that the Veterans administration schedule an exam with a doctor who has obtained and reviewed the entire SMR at the time of the first review of the file for any reason. The doctor doing the exam should be prescreened and chosen by the veterans advocate. This is what has been required by a competent attorney's working industrial injury claims for decades.

Much of the case law and veterans problems were caused by the VA's own screwed up inability to identify potential disability and allowing VSO's rather than attorneys to try and unravel the VA's screwed up system.

See my post on this issue coming soon to hadit

Hoppy

100% for Angioedema with secondary conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest fla_viking

Dear Hoppy

That is a good observaton of the realitys of the VA system. I would like ot add. IN the mid 70's when I went through the system. VA had rules that if you were diagnossed as a personality disorder. They did not do a C&P examinaton. Allot of vets were psychotic even though labeled as a personality disorder. Allot of those personality disorders had much more sever problems but due to convience of the VA. No furhter investigatons were made.

Terry Higgins

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

Terry,

I have a real good example of the personality disorder BS on my list and the entire paper trail to prove the BS. It will be posted soon.

Hoppy

100% for Angioedema with secondary conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Tell a friend

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

    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • jERRYMCK earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • 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.   
    • 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

       
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use