We all know the VA LOVES to take a sawzall to our claim, chopping it up into several pieces, often meaning decades of delays, but the question is do they really have a legal basis to do this? While we all know they have done it, it may be time to "call them" on this and appeal it preventing it for the future.
ONE example (there are many):
I applied for: (quoting from my VCAA letter): "Disability compensation benefits for hearing loss".
When it got to the BVA, it was already "cut" to (quoting from BVA decision) "service connection for hearing loss".
Can you see how it was "chopped"? I did not apply for "service connection" to the exclusion of other things..because service connection, at 0%, means NO compensation. The BVA did not take up the whole issue. I was asking for compensation...MONEY...not
free bouncy balls because I am service connected. Further, my claim for benefits established the effective date.
Service connection is only ONE issue...another is disability percentage, and still another is effective date. Now I have to go back to the BVA and have them decide the effective date, which should have already been decided.
If you read Roberson, below, you will note as my pastor might say....the VA is supposed to decide some of our claims....No? What percent of our claims? Oh, ALL of them..and this is what congress mandated. So if they have to decide all of them, does this mean they can chop them up and just decide part?
Roberson Principii states:
Roberson alleges that Norris v. West, 12 Vet. App. 413 (1999), is applicable and holds that the VA’s requirement that TDIU be specifically requested “loses sight of the Congressional mandate that the VA is to ‘fully and sympathetically develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before decision on its merits.’” Norris, 12 Vet. App. at 420 (citing Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Although Norris does not bind this court as precedent, it is both on-point and informative.
<br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always; ">The facts of Norris are similar to the present case. Norris was rated 70 percent disabled from a mental disorder. Id. at 415. His rating was increased to 100 percent based on 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (i.e., the same basis for increasing Roberson’s rating to 100 percent). Id. at 416. Before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Norris alleged CUE in not giving him an earlier effective date for his 100 percent rating. Id. The government alleged that an informal claim for TDIU was not raised under the specific facts of Norris’s case because entitlement to TDIU requires a showing of at least an informal claim specifically alleging TDIU. Id. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rejected the government’s argument because such a position “loses sight of VA’s congressional mandate that VA is to ‘fully and sympathetically develop the veterans’ claim to its optimum before deciding it on its merits.’” Id. at 420 (citing Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). In addition, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims stated that developing a claim “to its optimum” must include determining all potential claims raised by the evidence and applying all relevant law and regulation raised by that evidence regardless of how the claim is identified.Id.
These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.
Service Connection
Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected.
Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.
Effective Dates
Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.
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.
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”
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.
Question
broncovet
We all know the VA LOVES to take a sawzall to our claim, chopping it up into several pieces, often meaning decades of delays, but the question is do they really have a legal basis to do this? While we all know they have done it, it may be time to "call them" on this and appeal it preventing it for the future.
ONE example (there are many):
I applied for: (quoting from my VCAA letter): "Disability compensation benefits for hearing loss".
When it got to the BVA, it was already "cut" to (quoting from BVA decision) "service connection for hearing loss".
Can you see how it was "chopped"? I did not apply for "service connection" to the exclusion of other things..because service connection, at 0%, means NO compensation. The BVA did not take up the whole issue. I was asking for compensation...MONEY...not
free bouncy balls because I am service connected. Further, my claim for benefits established the effective date.
Service connection is only ONE issue...another is disability percentage, and still another is effective date. Now I have to go back to the BVA and have them decide the effective date, which should have already been decided.
If you read Roberson, below, you will note as my pastor might say....the VA is supposed to decide some of our claims....No? What percent of our claims? Oh, ALL of them..and this is what congress mandated. So if they have to decide all of them, does this mean they can chop them up and just decide part?
Roberson Principii states:
Roberson alleges that Norris v. West, 12 Vet. App. 413 (1999), is applicable and holds that the VA’s requirement that TDIU be specifically requested “loses sight of the Congressional mandate that the VA is to ‘fully and sympathetically develop the veteran’s claim to its optimum before decision on its merits.’” Norris, 12 Vet. App. at 420 (citing Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Although Norris does not bind this court as precedent, it is both on-point and informative.
<br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always; ">The facts of Norris are similar to the present case. Norris was rated 70 percent disabled from a mental disorder. Id. at 415. His rating was increased to 100 percent based on 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (i.e., the same basis for increasing Roberson’s rating to 100 percent). Id. at 416. Before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Norris alleged CUE in not giving him an earlier effective date for his 100 percent rating. Id. The government alleged that an informal claim for TDIU was not raised under the specific facts of Norris’s case because entitlement to TDIU requires a showing of at least an informal claim specifically alleging TDIU. Id. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims rejected the government’s argument because such a position “loses sight of VA’s congressional mandate that VA is to ‘fully and sympathetically develop the veterans’ claim to its optimum before deciding it on its merits.’” Id. at 420 (citing Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). In addition, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims stated that developing a claim “to its optimum” must include determining all potential claims raised by the evidence and applying all relevant law and regulation raised by that evidence regardless of how the claim is identified. Id.
I would like opinions:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
5
3
1
1
Popular Days
Mar 26
6
Mar 27
3
Mar 28
3
Top Posters For This Question
broncovet 5 posts
Philip Rogers 3 posts
john999 1 post
boomer2 1 post
Popular Days
Mar 26 2011
6 posts
Mar 27 2011
3 posts
Mar 28 2011
3 posts
11 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now