Ro Did Not Complete Nov. 2002 Ao Claim

[warren]

I took AO examination in the year 2002, I then filed a claim for hearing loss. I provided them with every thing they requested. I was denied and I appealed and was denied again, this is ok, but I also filed for Neurological issues due to agent orange. RO sent me letter telling me what I had to do and what they would do, I complied with their request. Being my first claims, I didn't know to keep a copy. A month ago I request copies of all correspondence from RO for the period Jan 2002 thru Dec 2004 under the FOIA. I received all the hearing loss claim papers and this claim was processed correctly according to the Laws, but on the AO claim, the only papers I received from them on my Neurlogical claim, was the letter they sent me, back in 2002, telling me what they would do and what I had to do. It looks like they didn't finish my claim. I called my DAV rep. and he is going to talk to the RO. I was approved for Parkinson's in 2011. Bertha and I have discussed the Nehmer Law concerning the Parkinson's. If they didn't finish my claim in 2002, what recourse do I have? Thanks for any info.

GOD BLESS

[john999]

If they did not finish your claim due to no fault of your own then your claim is still open and you might be able to get an EED.

[Navy04]

John is on the money bud.

[Berta]

“but I also filed for Neurological issues due to agent orange. “

“I was approved for Parkinson's in 2011. Bertha and I have discussed the Nehmer Law concerning the Parkinson's. If they didn't finish my claim in 2002, what recourse do I have? Thanks for any info. “

If the neurological condition ( Parkinsons) was rated and given a % and diagnostic code as NSC on the older claim decision ….which seems to still be open as John correctly said....then , by raising the open issue claim, as well as Foot Note One Nehmer, to them, they should go back to that older claim.

“but on the AO claim, the only papers I received from them on my Neurlogical claim, was the letter they sent me, back in 2002, telling me what they would do and what I had to do. It looks like they didn't finish my claim. I called my DAV rep. and he is going to talk to the RO “

Good if he really talks to them.And if he really understands Nehmer.

Did the packet you got (I assume it was a copy of your C file) also hold any of the evidence you said you had sent to them:

“RO sent me letter telling me what I had to do and what they would do, I complied with their request.”

That was the VCAA letter. They tried to screw me (and my former reps helped them) by failing to send me the proper VCAA letter response form with their VCAA letter for a claim I filed in 2003.

I responded to the VCAA letter (which was legally deficient in many ways) by sending them the evidence they needed for my claim.

Then they denied saying I did not respond to sending them the VA response form ,which they had failed to send to me in the first place. Your post here sounded like dejavu all over again to me....

BVA agreed with me that my VCAA was deficient and illegal.

Even the director of my rep org (not DAV...I dumped them long ago) sent me a letter trying to convince me that my VCAA letter was legal. That letter went to the OGC with my complaint on their ineptness and complete lack of knowledge of VA case law.

I am anxious to see what the DAV rep finds out.There certainly are many good vet reps out there,so I hope he or she gets a logical (and documented) answer from the RO on this.

I assume the award for the Parkinsons did not refer to any other past claim you had made for it????

If it complies with Footnote one.(The older claim)....just google Footnote One Nehmer hadit.com,

I think they owe you some cash,in my opinion,

These are 2 links to many of the Footnote One discusssions we have had here at hadit.

Rick Spataro, Head Nehmer attorney, NVLSP ,was fabulous in emailing and talking to me by phone many times over the nuances of the 2010 Nehmer regulations so that the info I posted here was correct.

Somewhere, maybe in one of these 2 links is his email to me explaining Footnote One,which in my opinion was the essence of the new regs and provided considerable compensation awards due to a very favorable EED.