Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
2011 Cvac Grants Sc--For Two Bva Cue Denials Of A 1963 Claim Remanded For Readjudication
Rate this question
Asked by
Jumpmaster,
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
Our picks
-
VA Disability Claims: 5 Game-Changing Precedential Decisions You Need to Know
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
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.
Rating Issues
Continue Reading on HadIt.com-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Are all military medical records on file at the VA?
RichardZ posted a topic in How to's on filing a Claim,
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
Picked By
RichardZ, -
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
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
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability ratingPicked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
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.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
Jumpmaster
This CUE Winner Proved!--VA failed to consider both prongs of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111 for rebutting the Presumption of Soundness.
http://www.va.gov/vetapp/wraper_bva.asp?file=/vetapp11/Files2/1115486.txt
Citation Nr: 1115486
Decision Date: 04/20/11 Archive Date: 05/04/11
DOCKET NO. 02-15 026A ) DATE
THE ISSUE: Whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a September 1963 rating decision that denied service connection for a right knee disability.
INTRODUCTION
The appellant is a veteran who served on active duty from September 1961 to May 1963. This matter was originally before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2003 RO determination which found no CUE in a September 1963 rating decision that denied service connection for a right knee disability.
In February 2005, the Board issued a decision that, in pertinent part, denied the Veteran's motion alleging CUE. He appealed that part of the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an April 2007 memorandum decision, the Court vacated that part of the Board's decision and remanded that issue for readjudication.
In October 2007, the Board issued a decision that denied the Veteran's motion alleging CUE. The Veteran again appealed to the Court. In a May 2010 memorandum decision, the Court vacated the Board's decision and remanded the issue for readjudication.
In the May 2010 memorandum decision, the Court, citing Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298, 311, 312 (1994) held, in essence, that the Federal Circuit's interpretation of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111 had retroactive effect, and that the failure to consider both prongs of the § 1111 requirement for rebutting the presumption of soundness could serve as the basis for CUE.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A September 4, 1963 rating decision denied the Veteran service connection for a right knee disability.
2. The September 4, 1963 rating decision did not properly apply governing law, and such failure was outcome determinative.
3. A statutory presumption that the Veteran's pre-existing right knee disability was aggravated by service is not shown to be rebutted by clear and unmistakable evidence.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The September 4, 1963 rating decision which denied the Veteran service connection for a right knee disorder involved clear and unmistakable error and requires revision; service connection for a right knee disability on the basis that pre-existing disability was aggravated by service is warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109A, 7105 (West 2002 & Supp. 2010); 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (2010).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 311 (now renumbered as 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111) a veteran was considered to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted, and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination, acceptance, and enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such.
The Court remanded the case for the Board to provide an adequate explanation of whether the evidence before the 1963 RO constituted clear and unmistakable evidence that the Veteran's right knee disability did not increase in severity during service or that any increase was due to the natural progress of the disease.
At the time of the RO's decision in 1963 there is no explicit opinion in support of a finding of no aggravation. The April 1963 examination performed for purposes of a Medical Board described the Veteran's knee disability as "progressive." That opinion was not explained. The other evidence of record showed that the Veteran entered service with no manifestations of right knee disability and a physical profile of 1, or medically fit for any assignment, with respect to the lower extremities. See Chapter 9, Army Regulation 40-401 (1960) (judicially recognized by the Court in its May 2010 Memorandum Decision). In service he reported knee problems, including complaints of swelling and soreness, in November 1961, December 1961, February 1963, March 1963, and April 1963.
The post-service VA examination in July 1963 was negative, finding no evidence of effusion or arthritis while physical findings revealed no swelling, no muscle atrophy, no tenderness, no locking, full range of motion, good stability, no limp, and no defects. The examination report contains no opinion regarding aggravation.
The Federal Circuit clarified in Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2004), that the presumption of soundness under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111 is rebutted only if there is both (1) clear and unmistakable evidence that the claimed condition existed prior to service and (2) clear and unmistakable evidence that any pre-existing conditions were not aggravated by service.
ORDER
The appeal to establish CUE in the September 4, 1963 rating decision which denied the Veteran service connection for a right knee disorder is granted; service connection for a right knee disorder is granted.
____________________________________________
GEORGE R. SENYK
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
2
Popular Days
Jul 12
4
Top Posters For This Question
john999 2 posts
Jumpmaster 2 posts
Popular Days
Jul 12 2012
4 posts
3 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