-
-
Show Your Support for HadIt.com Veteran to Veteran - Wear With Pride - You are part of a 25 Year Tradition of Veterans Help Veterans through the VA Disability Claims Process.
-
Who's Online 3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 38 Guests (See full list)
- 0
Show Your Support for HadIt.com Veteran to Veteran - Wear With Pride - You are part of a 25 Year Tradition of Veterans Help Veterans through the VA Disability Claims Process.
{terms] and Guidelines
Question
Berta
Cue back to 1949- the VA MUST have clear and unmistakable evidence to deem a condition as "pre-existing".
This resulted from a CUE Motion filed against the BVA. Those motions usually fail but this vet had the evidence he needed.
http://www.va.gov/ve...les/0300857.txt
“Therefore, the Board's April 1949 decision, which found
CUE in the original grant of service connection for
retinitis pigmentosa, and denied restoration of service
connection for retinitis pigmentosa, was an improper
application of the governing law and regulations in
existence at that time.
Moreover, on the September 1943 eye consult in service the
specialist specifically found that the congenital eye
condition did not preexist service, which conflicts with
the October 1943 report of Medical Board Officers who
summarily and without explanation found that the condition
existed prior to service without aggravation therein. “
ORDER
As there was CUE in the April 1949 Board decision which
denied restoration of service connection for retinitis
pigmentosa, the motion for reversal of that decision is
granted.
Edited by Berta (see edit history)Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
Dec 5
1
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 1 post
Popular Days
Dec 5 2012
1 post
0 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.