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

Tdiu Reduction Overcome By Cue Claim (Retro 1982)

Rate this question


Berta

Question

I dont know if this beautiful CUE award is here yet. Carlie forgive me if you already posted this.

In part:

“Analysis

In July 2010, the Veteran's attorney submitted a motion for CUE, alleging that the RO failed to consider 38 C.F.R. § 3.343© when it terminated the Veteran's entitlement to TDIU in a decision dated May 17, 1982. The Veteran did not appeal the May 1982 decision and it became final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105. “

and

“In March 1981, the RO granted the Veteran's claim for TDIU and assigned an effective date of October 1980.

On May 17, 1982, the RO terminated the Veteran's entitlement to TDIU effective September 1, 1982. The rating action referenced the reports of April 1982 VA examinations as the genesis for the reduction. It was determined that the Veteran's service-connected back disability had improved based on the findings in the VA examinations and the rating assigned for the back disability was reduced from 60 percent to 40 percent. As a result of the reduction the RO terminated entitlement to TDIU noting the Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not meet the schedular requirement for continued entitlement to TDIU in May 1982.

A review of the rating action in question reveals that the May 17, 1982 rating action is totally devoid of any indication that the RO found, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Veteran was employable. Significantly, the rating action does not address any evidence pertaining to the Veteran's employability or discuss whether the Veteran is employable.

A review of the evidence of record at the time of the May 17, 1982 rating action demonstrates to the Board that there was not clear and convincing evidence of the Veteran's employability at that time. The reports of the April 1982 VA examinations do not provide any evidence that the Veteran is employable. The neuropsychiatric examination includes the annotation that the Veteran is unemployed at the time of the examination. The orthopedic examination did not discuss employability. The fact that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, and in particular his back disability, had improved at the time of the April 1982 VA examinations does not equate to a finding that the Veteran was employable at that time and certainly does not provide clear and convincing evidence that he was employable.

The Board, therefore, finds, in response to the Veteran's current motion, that the May 1982 reduction did violate pertinent provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.343. See Olson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 430. The evidence of record did not demonstrate the

Veteran's actual employability to a clear and convincing evidence standard (an intermediate standard between preponderance of the evidence and reasonable doubt) as of the time of the termination of TDIU. As a result, the RO's May 17, 1982 decision that terminated the Veteran's total disability rating based on individual unemployability involved clear and unmistakable error. Therefore that May 17, 1982 decision is hereby revised such that the Veteran's total disability rating based on individual unemployability is restored. “

“ORDER

The May 17, 1982 RO decision was clearly and unmistakably erroneous in terminating the movant's TDIU evaluation; the decision is revised to restore the award of TDIU effective as of September 1, 1982, subject to controlling regulations applicable to the payment of monetary benefits.”

The veteran's attorney for this appeal was Robert V. Chisholm.

The VA owed this vet retro for TDIU from 1982 less the SC % he already had received from 1982.

Yippee! Justice prevailed here.

Here is link to the regulation the attponey cited:

http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/3-343-continuance-total-disability-ratings-19775472

Edited by Berta

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

Top Posters For This Question

4 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

Berta, Carlie and PR this is encouraging new for many of us here at Hadit. Does Atty Robert V. Chisholm has a website?

I am posting a CUE Questions and Issue for my 1991 VA denials in the CUE Forum.

Berta is correct Justice did prevail in this veteran's case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

You know thousands of WWII vets were treated like this where they got a rating on discharge and a few years later the VA decided they had improved and just sent them a letter reducing them with or without an exam. Many just let the appeal date go by and carried on with their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

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

    • Lebro earned a badge
      First Post
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • stuart55 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Lebro earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Sparklinger earned a badge
      First Post
  • Our picks

    • 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

       
    • Good question.   

          Maybe I can clear it up.  

          The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more.  (my paraphrase).  

      More here:

      Source:

      https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/

      NOTE:   TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY.  This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond.    If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use