New Evidence For The Remand They Have To Look At

[KDM]

To the Appeals Management Center 17221 I Street Washington DC

Concerning Remanded Case Docket Number 05-00-259A

I submit this.

1. Page three of the remand paragraph three as stated “As a final and preliminary matter in February 13 Veteran disagreed with the effective date of his disability rating granted by the AMC in October 2012 rating decision. This claim for an earlier effective date has not yet been addressed by the RO. As such this matter is not properly before the Board and is thus referred to the RO for appropriate action.

1. I am still waiting on this matter for the early effective date any type of action on the appeal from Nov 2003 Upgrade in the Oct 2012 10 percent increase so I can move forward the appeal was made in 2004 of march for a case from November of 2003

2 .As noted in 2012 Board remand after the issuance of June 26 SSCO the Veteran underwent an August 2007 VA exam no Documentation for consideration of that evidence is applied in neither discussion this is all connected to the appeal was made in 2004 of march for a case from November of 2003.

1. August 31 2007 Mental Disorder claim Increase Secondary conditiont operation after reviewing the CNP by Doctor Abby Varkey Kurian MD approved by Paula Jenkins I see the term used by the CNP doctor as likely as not the patients depressive symptoms are secondary residuals of my service connected operation condition i.e.
2. The weight gain to 274lbs, Sexual dysfunction I etc. I apply the following in terms of the 2007 evidence
3. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b).
   Section 5107(b) expressly provides that the benefit of the doubt rule must be applied to a claim when the evidence submitted in support of the claim is in relative equipoise.
4. The evidence is in relative equipoise when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. When the evidence is in relative equipoise, the reasonable doubt rule must be applied to the claim, and thus, the claim must be resolved in favor of the claimant. See Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 206-207 (1994); Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 69-70 (1993); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990).
5. A nexus has been formed in this case when the term

3 What is the status of my remand I am currently hospitalized and looking for housing due to my current status.

What phase is my Remand in \?

4. in the letter sent to me dated Aug 7 2007, in reply refer to 397/JG they stated “We have Obtained all outstanding pertinent records of evaluation and treatment from New York Harbor (since April 13 2012) and Hudson Valley (since Dec 22 2005), and New Jersey (since May 2006)” In the Aug 24 2007 Audio Exam done by Benajmen-Mckie, Angela approve by Paula Jenkins “term is as least likely as not the(50/50 profanity) that the mild threshold shift in hearing acuity is due to or caused by acoustic trauma related to the veterans military noise exposure during service this also applicable to the benefits of the doubt rule used in terms of me the veteran and my case thank you

Please Mail to me all answers to my address 79b this is all the evidence I have there is nothing else I need to use in my case no outside records etc thank you

[Berta]

I am confused by this. It isnt you, it is me.

Is this your Remand?:

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files2/1209481.txt

This is one of your initial posts here:

“In 2003 I was granted a zero percent service connectionfor an initial claim i apealed in a NOD and asked for an increase or an upgrade in 2003 withgin the years time limit.

I was granted an upgrade of 10 percent in 2013 fro the 2003 appeal/ upgrade.”

(Good)

“This was on a CNP for the appeal that i was given in 2012 “

(Great)

“9 years later “

“of April they say that is is new evidence I said then in 2004 that the evidence existed etc and so on”

Ok and you continuously prosecuted the same claim with no break...as I understand this.

“Thet only granted me back to April of 2012 so I appealed there descision for an EED and they Denied it usinga CUE,”

“This then went back to Washington where they looked at there denial and from whgat i understadn the bad EED date and Remanded the case baclk to the regional office is this in my favor or not?”

Yes, it the evidence can overcome their CUE statement.

Above quotes from

The Remand, if this was it above ,states:

“In this case, additional pertinent evidence-in particular, the report of an August 2007 VA examination-was received by the RO after the issuance of the June 2006 SSOC but prior to certification to the Board in December 2011. However, no SSOC addressing this evidence was issued, as required by regulation. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31, 19.37 (2011). Under these circumstances, the Board has not alternative but to remand the matter on appeal for RO consideration in light of the additional evidence received, in the first instance, and for issuance of an SSOC reflecting such consideration.”

Also it included these very important points:

“The entire claims file, to include a complete copy of the REMAND, must be made available to each physician designated to examine the Veteran, and each examination report should include discussion of the Veteran's documented medical history and assertions. All appropriate tests and studies should be accomplished (with all results made available to the requesting individual prior to the completion of his or her report) and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. Each physician should set forth all examination findings in completed (typewritten) report.”
and
“To help avoid future remand, the RO must ensure that all requested actions have been accomplished (to the extent possible) in compliance with this REMAND. If any action is not undertaken, or is taken in a deficient manner, appropriate corrective action should be undertaken. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).
6. After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, the RO should readjudicate the claims for higher ratings for status post hernia repair and scar due to hernia repair.
If the Veteran fails, without good cause, to report to the hernia examination, in adjudicating the claim for increased rating, the RO should apply the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b), as appropriate.
Otherwise, the RO should adjudicate each claim on appeal in light of all pertinent evidence (to particularly include all that added to the record since the RO's last adjudication of the claims) and legal authority (to include whether staged rating, pursuant to Fenderson and Hart (cited above) is appropriate.)”

“If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the RO must furnish to the Veteran and his representative an appropriate SSOC that includes clear reasons and bases for all determinations, and afford them the appropriate time period for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration.”

I saw no mention of the CUE they called on themselves in the remand . I assume it was Moot to te BVA because they requested what looks to me li9ke a complete re-do.

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files2/1209481.txt

It appears to me that the RO is still in process of either preparing a SSOC or in fact,perhaps an award.

I know this is a frustrating long process for you.Remands take time.

I dealt with the AMC for my DMII AO death claim. They are useless and would not respond to my letters, faxes or phone calls. I am assuming that the VARO has your remand and not the AMC because they farm out claims back to VAROs sometimes.

You would get a better status (maybe) by using the VA IRIS system

The remand ,if yours says,

“REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:       Disabled American Veterans”

What is the DAV doing to help you get a status of your claim and are they aware of your current circumstances?

“What is the status of my remand I am currently hospitalized and looking for housing due to my current status.”
Is the hospitalization due to a SC condition? 

[Berta]

sorry if that last part goes beyond the reply area....This happened to me twice here this week, dont know why.Jim Guaymas caught it too.

I think the new Gen 4 satelitte (I come off beam 25 for my modem) has a loose screw.

or maybe I do.

I havent got a clue why these sentences didnt stay in the parameters of the reply box.

I usually put my reply in an Office org doc and then when I reply I have to use the fourth doodad thing from the right in the top icons. A box pops down and I paste my reply there. Then hit OK and it goes onto hadit.

It always seems to fit into that little doodad box.

It has something to do with my security stuff on my browser. I think.

[KDM]

Yes Berta that is my remand as stated and thank you.

[KDM]

But since the initial remand of 2012 and the ten percent increase they have forgotten to use the evidence in 2007 Aug CNP wich I doucmented above and i recently got another remand dated june 30 2013 for them to take in consideration the 2007 CNP data that i reviewed and sent to them above through IRIs and Faxes is there any AMC fax number

[KDM]

Berta or anyone

can you tell me what this statement means to you please

After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, the RO should readjudicate the claims for higher ratings for status post hernia repair and scar due to hernia repairWith regard to the Veteran's claims for higher ratings for status post hernia repair and for scar due to hernia repair, the most recent VA examination for these disabilities was in August 2007. In the January 2012 Appellant's Brief, the Veteran's representative essentially argued that the symptoms associated with the status post hernia repair and the symptoms associated with the scar due to hernia repair had increased in severity since the August 2007 evaluation.

[Berta]

To me it means that the Regional Office who has jurisdiction over your claim ,once they do this:

"completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted,"

will re do the decision and if the VA has medical evidence that the hernia repair and its resulting scar have increased in their disabling affect, to extent of a higher rating, then the VA will rate them at a higher level.