Carlie, Could You Please Take A Look At This

[bm6546]

Carlie,

I would appreciate it if you would please look at this and tell me what you think. I know you deal a lot with claims that involve a CUE.

I would like your take on this.

Thanks in advance,

Brian

[bm6546]

I have attached a copy of my rating decision that reduced my 10% to 0 %.

Rating Decision 2-5-68 a.pdf

[bm6546]

Greetings all:

I don't know if this makes a difference or not. The reduction in 68 (exam late 67) did not indicate that the Veteran had improved, it had indicated that the earlier 10% rating was an error/inappropriate. The screwy thing(and to Brian's advantage) is that they didn't sever service connection (which they cannot now do-protected).

A lot of CFR references that have been thrown about in this CUE discussion were amended updated after 68. Is there a site where we can see the CFR as it was written at the time the decision was made? Can we site any BVA or CAVC decisions post 68 to prove CUE?

My apologies, this post is more aimed at gaining an understanding of some of the finer points on CUE than addressing the question at hand.

Best regards,

71M10,

I'm not sure what you are referring to here: "The reduction in 68 (exam late 67) did not indicate that the Veteran had improved, it had indicated that the earlier 10% rating was an error/inappropriate" Where does it say that it was an error. And shouldn't the VA have informed me that the 10% they originally gave me was given to me in error or was inappropriate at the time.

[71M10]

I didn't mean to refer to the Exam specifically but to the excerpt that you had listed earlier in the conversation that I thought was the rating decision you were quoting. I will try to take a look back and identify the post by date. The actual decision clearly doesn't state "improvement".

Best regards

Edited December 13, 2011 by 71M10

[71M10]

Brian,

Page four of the remand: " By rating decision in February 1968, the 10 percent evaluation for PAT was reduced to noncompensable. In making that determination the RO noted that in the December 1966 VA examination a compensable disability was not shown"

The attached rating decision posted today at 11:42 states it Amends the 3-3-67 rating. But I dont see anything that states the initial rating was in error, but it also doesn't state that there has been improvement in your condition. Unless the c-file contains notes that explicity document the RO reasoning that no-compensable disability existed. I don't see any reference to the original exam or rating being in error, but that is how the BVA is characterizing it. Again they have that reference to 38 USC 336 which doesn't seem to make any sense?

I think it's wrong, maybe it is CUE, the fact that the rating decision does not state improvement or nor does it explicitly state the original rating was in error. Unless I have missed some key piece of information that was shared, this decision looks capricious. So what if on 12/1/67 he didn't have a recordable PAT during the exam (was it even 15 minutes long)?

Best regards,

Edited December 13, 2011 by 71M10

[bm6546]

I didn't mean to refer to the Exam specifically but to the excerpt that you had listed earlier in the conversation that I thought was the rating decision you were quoting. I will try to take a look back and identify the post by date. The actual decision clearly doesn't state "improvement".

Best regards

Your right, the actual decision does NOT state "improvement". I think they are using the statement "veteran is steadily employed" as their basis for reducing my 10%.

[bm6546]

Brian,

Page four of the remand: " By rating decision in February 1968, the 10 percent evaluation for PAT was reduced to noncompensable. In making that determination the RO noted that in the December 1966 VA examination a compensable disability was not shown"

The attached rating decision posted today at 11:42 states it Amends the 3-3-67 rating. But I dont see anything that states the initial rating was in error, but it also doesn't state that there has been improvement in your condition. Unless the c-file contains notes that explicity document the RO reasoning that no-compensable disability existed. I don't see any reference to the original exam or rating being in error, but that is how the BVA is characterizing it. Again they have that reference to 38 USC 336 which doesn't seem to make any sense?

I think it's wrong, maybe it is CUE, the fact that the rating decision does not state improvement or nor does it explicitly state the original rating was in error. Unless I have missed some key piece of information that was shared, this decision looks capricious. So what if on 12/1/67 he didn't have a recordable PAT during the exam (was it even 15 minutes long)?

Best regards,

I am still having my attacks of PAT to this day. In fact, the VA Cardiologist prescribed me with medication in 2008 for my PAT which seemed to be getting worse. I think the medication seems to be helping because my PAT has not been so bad lately. Gee...you think the drugs are helping?

I don't really remember my C&P exam back in 2006 but I know I did not have a PAT attack when the dr was examining me. I have gone several months without a PAT attack and there are times that I have had 3 PAT attacks in 1 week...go figure. I am pretty sure my C&P exam back then didn't last for more than 15 minutes. The last 3 C&P exams, by a NP, didn't last more than 10 minutes....max.