Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
-
Similar Content
-
- 0 comments
- 954 views
-
- 0 replies
- 336 views
-
- 3 answers
- 320 views
-
- 0 replies
- 359 views
-
- 0 comments
- 1,087 views
-
Question
Hoppy
My contention is that the above instruction did not exist in 2004. I have found no objective standard of law circa 2004 requiring that the buddy letter be corroborated. I have successfully used the failure to identify an objective standard of law argument in another case. The case involved an adjudicator who said that it required more than on notation of a disease in the SMR to service connect the disease. They used this argument to deny the claim without a C&P. I argued that the requirement that the disease be noted more than once was a false objective standard of law. The SO turned it in and the claim was awarded based on the existing medical evidence.
Hoppy
100% for Angioedema with secondary conditions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
7
6
3
2
Popular Days
Sep 17
6
Sep 15
5
Sep 22
4
Sep 16
3
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 7 posts
Hoppy 6 posts
broncovet 3 posts
Philip Rogers 2 posts
Popular Days
Sep 17 2013
6 posts
Sep 15 2013
5 posts
Sep 22 2013
4 posts
Sep 16 2013
3 posts
19 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