Question For "interested"

[jbasser]

You have mail.

[Philip Rogers]

Thanks, Berta! No, I haven't been able to talk to anyone. I've emailed them a few times and never received a response, either. I'm going to try to meet w/my Service center Mgr and get it resolved, before writing the Secretary and asking for assistance. Perhaps, as you suggest, I'll write the NVLSP first. Meantime it's on active appeal. As always, thanks, again!

pr

Philip- I got burned out about this issue months ago here BUT only because there has been NO definitive answer to your question from the VA or from anyone else-

even the VBM does not clarify this issue.

I don't think any vet has ever pushed this issue far enough as Bradley V Peake involved an entirely different aspect of SMC.

I think maybe only a BVA denial appealed to the CAVC would resolve this issue.

"I'm prepared to go all the way to the court." GREAT!!!!!!I would do that too if I were you.

Have you called or written to Bart Stickman or Ron Abrams about this?

I suggest writing to them because in 1995 (my relationship with NVLSP started in 1991 but they never have represented me)

I had a long discussion with one of their top guns as to an FTCA question on what they had written in the VBM.

He said I was wrong in my interpretation of something there. We had a long discussion because the FTCA info in the VBM is limited and they always suggest getting an FTCA attorney for help with torts.

I didnt know if I clearly asked the question by phone ----and might have left out something that would have changed his opinion.

I think now -had I written him a letter instead , his answer would have been different.

My interpretation was right- based on my refund offset letter last year (which was quite a battle to get)

But I do believe he was stuck on a specific reg ,correctly interpreting it and I was stuck on how to overcome that reg.

So I feel I should had written to him instead to explain it all.

Then again NVLSP doesnt get involved with specific claims- they are interested in any legal aspects however that could impact other claimants as in your case.

No one ever raised the legal issue I had raised with them in that phone call.And the issue would involve a very limited portion of FTCA claimants.

And had never been tested before as far as I know.

I am checking the 2011 edition in a minute of the VBM to see if they have ever clarified their point in the FTCA section.

If not I will send them a letter.

I think this is a proper discussion here at hadit.

I hoped someone out there in hyperspace would have posted that they succeeded on SMC S due to multiple additional SCs like yours that put them to the S criteria but no one did.Yet.

And we have not had a CAVC case yet to decide this issue so you might be the first CAVC case and you could potentially win and ,if the decision is precedental -

you would alter the lives of MANY veterans.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Philip Rogers

[Interested]

As for your ineffectual attempt at baiting, that concept had crossed my mind but I as a charitable person ignored it - that word was brought up by another. Again, if I were not so charitable, I prolly should feel offended by such a weak attempt.

My "opinion" has little to do with anything. What do the books say? One does not have to agree with what is in the books, but one must follow the books. However, if you work hard enough - rather than complaining as another astute poster noted, you just might get things changed. Would I like whatever change comes about? Mebbe, mebbe not - but I go along with it.

While he/she didn'tclarify that aspect of the question asked, "I feel" he/she sortadanced around the CRT portion, with regard to the VA's handling of the"s" award. You feel? You feel? What is unclear in your mind about:

Posted 20September 2011 - 01:25 PM

(snip)

Once the single 100% (or 100% equivalent) is established, it is disregarded for purposes of future computations. You effectively start over with the remaining disabilities, which are combined per 38 CFR 4.26 (if appropriate) and 38 CFR 4.25.

[Berta]

jbasser You have mail

[Philip Rogers]

Interested - okay, thanks! Sorry you feel I was "baiting." Maybe I'm not understanding what posters mean by baiting. Thank you for your final sentence, as that explains what I needed to know and was asking originally. As for the "I feel" that was just me pointing out it was "my" opinion and nothing else. The answer to my original question was answered in your final sentence. Couldn't you have answered that way in the first place and saved all these other posts, in between. Thank you, again!!

pr

As for your ineffectual attempt at baiting, that concept had crossed my mind but I as a charitable person ignored it - that word was brought up by another. Again, if I were not so charitable, I prolly should feel offended by such a weak attempt.

My "opinion" has little to do with anything. What do the books say? One does not have to agree with what is in the books, but one must follow the books. However, if you work hard enough - rather than complaining as another astute poster noted, you just might get things changed. Would I like whatever change comes about? Mebbe, mebbe not - but I go along with it.

While he/she didn'tclarify that aspect of the question asked, "I feel" he/she sortadanced around the CRT portion, with regard to the VA's handling of the"s" award. You feel? You feel? What is unclear in your mind about:

Posted 20September 2011 - 01:25 PM

(snip)

Once the single 100% (or 100% equivalent) is established, it is disregarded for purposes of future computations. You effectively start over with the remaining disabilities, which are combined per 38 CFR 4.26 (if appropriate) and 38 CFR 4.25.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Philip Rogers

[jbasser]

jbasser You have mail

Berta, do you have my new Email address. I changed earlier in the year.

J