Jump to content
  •  

    Get Your HadIt.com Merch.

    2022-11-16_06-22-29.png

    Check them out here

  • 0

Tdiu Quiz (Level: Expert)


Byte187

Question

I've had quite a few people disagree with me on this particular question, so I want to ask here and see what the consensus is.
Consider this hypothetical veteran:
The veteran suffered a lower-back injury on active duty back in the 1980s. He received hospital treatment at the time so, years later, with his SMR, service connection was an easy matter. The VA attributes the veterans current lower back disability to his documented injury in the 1980s.
The veteran also suffers bilateral radiculopathy (legs), and the VA connected that, secondary to the SC back condition. The verterans current rating is as follows:
40% - lower back
20% - right leg
10% - left leg
60% - total
Question: Is this veteran qualified to be considered for TDIU? Why? or Why not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I've had quite a few people disagree with me on this particular question, so I want to ask here and see what the consensus is.
Consider this hypothetical veteran:
The veteran suffered a lower-back injury on active duty back in the 1980s. He received hospital treatment at the time so, years later, with his SMR, service connection was an easy matter. The VA attributes the veterans current lower back disability to his documented injury in the 1980s.
The veteran also suffers bilateral radiculopathy (legs), and the VA connected that, secondary to the SC back condition. The verterans current rating is as follows:
40% - lower back
20% - right leg
10% - left leg
60% - total
Question: Is this veteran qualified to be considered for TDIU? Why? or Why not?

A vet can submit a claim for a benefit issue at any time and yes, it will be considered.

Whether the issue is granted or not is completely separate from the above.

Is the veteran in receipt of SSDI benefits due solely to SC'd conditions ?

Does the veteran have medical evidence from a licensed medical professional

and / or an occupational specialist

stating an opinion such as, due solely to the veterans SC'd condition they find

the veteran to be completely and totally unable to hold substantial gainful employment.

Has the veteran been denied or released from a voc rehab program due solely to their

SC'd conditions ?

Does the veteran have any letters to submit, from prospective employers stating something like,

unfortunately due to the demands of XYZ position they feel you are not a viable candidate

for employment with them, due to your medical conditions, etc . . .

Under 38 CFR 4.16a - the claim for IU will be denied.

Under 38 CFR 4.16b - the claim for IU can be submitted

but IMO - it will be denied.

jmho

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9a6e233ec8d4952ff91c5e038b8ace95&node=se38.1.4_116&rgn=div8

§4.16 Total disability ratings for compensation based on unemployability of the individual.

(a) Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities: Provided That, if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) Disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable, (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident, (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g. orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular-renal, neuropsychiatric, (4) multiple injuries incurred in action, or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. It is provided further that the existence or degree of nonservice-connected disabilities or previous unemployability status will be disregarded where the percentages referred to in this paragraph for the service-connected disability or disabilities are met and in the judgment of the rating agency such service-connected disabilities render the veteran unemployable. Marginal employment shall not be considered substantially gainful employment. For purposes of this section, marginal employment generally shall be deemed to exist when a veteran's earned annual income does not exceed the amount established by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as the poverty threshold for one person. Marginal employment may also be held to exist, on a facts found basis (includes but is not limited to employment in a protected environment such as a family business or sheltered workshop), when earned annual income exceeds the poverty threshold. Consideration shall be given in all claims to the nature of the employment and the reason for termination.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)

(b) It is the established policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled. Therefore, rating boards should submit to the Director, Compensation Service, for extra-schedular consideration all cases of veterans who are unemployable by reason of service-connected disabilities, but who fail to meet the percentage standards set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. The rating board will include a full statement as to the veteran's service-connected disabilities, employment history, educational and vocational attainment and all other factors having a bearing on the issue.

[40 FR 42535, Sept. 15, 1975, as amended at 54 FR 4281, Jan. 30, 1989; 55 FR 31580, Aug. 3, 1990; 58 FR 39664, July 26, 1993; 61 FR 52700, Oct. 8, 1996; 79 FR 2100, Jan. 13, 2014]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

carlie, thanks for that reply, but I'm looking for an answer without the extra variables like SSDI, Voc Rehab, etc. And maybe I asked the question wrong with "qualified to be considered." Of course any veteran can submit any claim they choose and of course it will be considered, even if that just means reading the claim and rubber stamping a DENIED on it.

I'm not trying to determine if this veteran is qualified to be awarded TDIU -- that's where all those other things would come in to play. I'm asking about the VA even considering an application for TDIU with that veteran's current rating.

You touched on the point I'm specifically looking for.

--> "Under 38 CFR 4.16a - the claim for IU will be denied."

What do you see in 4.16a that will cause this claim to be denied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I've had quite a few people disagree with me on this particular question, so I want to ask here and see what the consensus is.
Consider this hypothetical veteran:
The veteran suffered a lower-back injury on active duty back in the 1980s. He received hospital treatment at the time so, years later, with his SMR, service connection was an easy matter. The VA attributes the veterans current lower back disability to his documented injury in the 1980s.
The veteran also suffers bilateral radiculopathy (legs), and the VA connected that, secondary to the SC back condition. The verterans current rating is as follows:
40% - lower back
20% - right leg
10% - left leg
60% - total
Question: Is this veteran qualified to be considered for TDIU? Why? or Why not?

if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more,

and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more.

Right now you need another rating to bring the total up to 70% or 4.16(B) for extra-schedular concideration

I would file for depression due to pain and the inability to preform the things I once did. Experts advice

for VA claims even lawyers have no ideal of what the decision will be jmho

Edited by RUREADY (see edit history)
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more,

and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more.

Right now you need another rating to bring the total up to 70% or 4.16(B) for extra-schedular concideration

I would file for depression due to pain and the inability to preform the things I once did. jmho

Thanks all, but let me just cut to the chase. I've had this conversation several times in the past two years, and so far, everybody has disagreed with me. Including two VSOs in the past 12 months, both of them even raised their voices at me, pee'd off that I had the nerve to disagree with them.

The specific point I make is this: according to 4.16a (as pointed out) veteran must have one single disability ratable at 60% or multiple disabilities rated a total of 70% with at least one of them being rated 40%. That's what everybody points out to me. But what I try to point out is subsection 2 or 4.16a:

For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability:

(2) Disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident.

I contend that this veteran's multiple disabilities share a common etiology (the back injury in the 80s) and therefore, the VA considers them to be one disability, rated at 60%, which now qualifies the veteran to be considered, according to 4.16a.

This is my contention that so many people have disagreed with me about. I can't understand why they disagree -- nobody has offered an explanation -- but I'll be happy to stand corrected if someone can show me why I'm wrong. And not just loudly cut me off mid-sentence, like the two VSOs did recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

carlie, thanks for that reply, but I'm looking for an answer without the extra variables like SSDI, Voc Rehab, etc. And maybe I asked the question wrong with "qualified to be considered." Of course any veteran can submit any claim they choose and of course it will be considered, even if that just means reading the claim and rubber stamping a DENIED on it.

I'm not trying to determine if this veteran is qualified to be awarded TDIU -- that's where all those other things would come in to play.

I'm asking about the VA even considering an application for TDIU with that veteran's current rating.

You have already acknowledged that "Of course any veteran can submit any claim they choose and of course it will be considered, so

I do not understand why you are asking the same question again.

Irregardless of the veteran's current rating, the "application for TDIU" would have to be considered.

You clearly already understand this.

You touched on the point I'm specifically looking for.

--> "Under 38 CFR 4.16a - the claim for IU will be denied."

What do you see in 4.16a that will cause this claim to be denied?

I do not feel the claim for IU will be warranted / granted because I do not feel that in the judgement

of the rating agency, they would adjudicate that SC at 40% lower back, 20 % left leg and 10% right leg,

would render the veteran unemployable.

Now, I do feel that if the veteran could submit the additional evidence I suggested, they would have

more of a chance in getting IU granted, but NOT without that additional supportive evidence.

jmho - carlie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more,

and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more.

Right now you need another rating to bring the total up to 70% or 4.16(B) for extra-schedular concideration

I would file for depression due to pain and the inability to preform the things I once did. Experts advice

for VA claims even lawyers have no ideal of what the decision will be jmho

The OP has not made any mention of depression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks all, but let me just cut to the chase. I've had this conversation several times in the past two years, and so far, everybody has disagreed with me. Including two VSOs in the past 12 months, both of them even raised their voices at me, pee'd off that I had the nerve to disagree with them.

The specific point I make is this: according to 4.16a (as pointed out) veteran must have one single disability ratable at 60% or multiple disabilities rated a total of 70% with at least one of them being rated 40%. That's what everybody points out to me. But what I try to point out is subsection 2 or 4.16a:

For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability:

(2) Disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident.

I contend that this veteran's multiple disabilities share a common etiology (the back injury in the 80s) and therefore, the VA considers them to be one disability, rated at 60%, which now qualifies the veteran to be considered, according to 4.16a.

This is my contention that so many people have disagreed with me about. I can't understand why they disagree -- nobody has offered an explanation -- but I'll be happy to stand corrected if someone can show me why I'm wrong. And not just loudly cut me off mid-sentence, like the two VSOs did recently.

I completely agree with your common etiology theory - that part to me, is a no brainer.

Getting granted IU under this will still be quite difficult, if at all, without more supportive evidence

of unemployability.

jmho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I'm sorry, but we got way off track here. I wasn't asking if this veteran would be granted IU. My question was only if the veteran qualifies to be considered/evaluated for IU, specifically with regard to the veteran's current rating. So yeah, we got way off track.

Whether this veteran would be granted IU or not -- or what, if any, additional evidence this veteran would need to be granted IU, is all irrelevant to the original question. I'm sorry for the confusion, and maybe that's part of why I still have never gotten a clear answer to the question. I'll let the question stand and I hope to hear some more specific answers.

Let me try to clarify the question this way: Based on 38 CFR 4.16, is this veteran qualified or disqualified for IU evaluation? Why? Nevermind whether or not you feel IU would be granted in the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The OP has not made any mention of depression.

my point exactly maybe he should think about that (a claim for depression) if he has back pain

its depressive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks all, but let me just cut to the chase. I've had this conversation several times in the past two years, and so far, everybody has disagreed with me. Including two VSOs in the past 12 months, both of them even raised their voices at me, pee'd off that I had the nerve to disagree with them.

The specific point I make is this: according to 4.16a (as pointed out) veteran must have one single disability ratable at 60% or multiple disabilities rated a total of 70% with at least one of them being rated 40%. That's what everybody points out to me. But what I try to point out is subsection 2 or 4.16a:

For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability:

(2) Disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident.

I contend that this veteran's multiple disabilities share a common etiology (the back injury in the 80s) and therefore, the VA considers them to be one disability, rated at 60%, which now qualifies the veteran to be considered, according to 4.16a.

This is my contention that so many people have disagreed with me about. I can't understand why they disagree -- nobody has offered an explanation -- but I'll be happy to stand corrected if someone can show me why I'm wrong. And not just loudly cut me off mid-sentence, like the two VSOs did recently.

I have the same rating as you and they would not grant me employability until I got my rating up to 40/30 but I

also had to file for depression to get TDIU . I believe that my back is the sole purpose for me to be

unemployable but VA don't think so. I have an appeals for this with an attorney for the same reason that

my back (only)is what made me unemployable I have a medical opion from a vocational expert saying the

same thing, but my RO refuses to send it to Washington for an extra-scheduler consideration. So we will see

soon what the reason as to why they wont grant benefits.

Edited by RUREADY (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Byte,

That is considered one injury for IU purposes and thus the RO can adjudicate the IU claim without sending it off to washington la,la land. The RO should have sent a notice with the rating decision indicating that the Vet may be eligible for IU. It's all in the CFR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I think its because the Back and the legs are two different rating. you still don't have any one disability at 60%

its either 60 for the back or 60 for the legs. You have and eye claim in and already tbi sc rating will this be

one claim. Who's common etiology do they use ours or VA. jmho

Edited by RUREADY (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Byte I would have to agree if the conditions all work together. I've seen IU grant for vets that are rated on all sc conditions from diabetes. Dmii. Pn upper/lower. Nephropathy. HTn and cataracts/retinopathy. Dmii 20. Pn 2nd dmii10 per limb. HTn 2nd dmii. 10. Cataracts/ret 2nd dmii. 0. Neph 2nd dmii 20 All common issue and grant

Another. 40 dm and 30 PTSD. Jmho

Low back and bilateral radiculopathy with drop foot included? Possibility. Jmho

Edited by JT24usn (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Moderator

The issue of whether these conditions share a common etiology is an issue of fact which will be decided by the VARO, and the BVA, if necessary.

Whether or not you will prevail, will likey turn on what the doc says. If the doc says they are the same etiology, then you should prevail. However, if the doc opines they are from a different etiology, your claim will likely fail.

This is part of the "nexus" and the CAVC, and other judges are forbidden to make this medical determination. If your records are ambigious or do not show whether or not this is a common etiology, then another C and P should be ordered.

All this said, the VA loves to just deny these and make you appeal, and get an IMO/IME to try to prove a common etiology, under 4.16 A.

For more on this, read this case:

http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/110b3d84-a144-4418-8c10-20506ef042e7/1/doc/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks to everyone for your answers. I sincerely appreciate the time you took. However, it looks like everybody read way more into my question than what I was asking.

This question really isn't about me or any actual veteran, it really is a hypothetical question about a situation where many veterans are getting bad/incorrect advice because VSOs are not correctly interpreting the CFR. It isn't about winning IU, It's only about the rating criteria in 38 CFR 4.16 paragraph (a) and about common etiology in sub-section (2).

Yes, I did use my own current rating to pose the question, and that probably lead people to believe I was referring to myself (and all the advice on how I might win my IU case -- which doesn't exist), but the rating used in this question could have been setup many different ways, I just used mine because it does fall into this category I'm talking about. The answer I'm looking for has nothing at all to do with winning an IU case, it's about a situation that many vets find themselves in, where their current rating appears to preclude them from even applying for IU, but only if their VSO doesn't read the CFR completely.

This question came up in a conversation I had with another veteran a couple years ago. He disagreed with me on my interpretation of the CFR, and I could never understand why. So, I asked several more people, and so far, everyone disagrees with me. I don't get it.

To me, it looks so simple, but obviously, it's not so simple to many people.

Thanks again, everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The issue of whether these conditions share a common etiology is an issue of fact which will be decided by the VARO, and the BVA, if necessary.

Whether or not you will prevail, will likey turn on what the doc says. If the doc says they are the same etiology, then you should prevail. However, if the doc opines they are from a different etiology, your claim will likely fail.

This is part of the "nexus" and the CAVC, and other judges are forbidden to make this medical determination. If your records are ambigious or do not show whether or not this is a common etiology, then another C and P should be ordered.

All this said, the VA loves to just deny these and make you appeal, and get an IMO/IME to try to prove a common etiology, under 4.16 A.

For more on this, read this case:

http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/110b3d84-a144-4418-8c10-20506ef042e7/1/doc/

broncovet, But isn't the common etiology already proven in this case? Remember, the back was determined, by the VA to be a result of a specific injury in the line of duty, and then the legs were determined, by the VA, to be a result of the back condition -- therefore, the back and legs share the common etiology of that single injury. No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks to everyone for your answers. I sincerely appreciate the time you took. However, it looks like everybody read way more into my question than what I was asking.

This question really isn't about me or any actual veteran, it really is a hypothetical question about a situation where many veterans are getting bad/incorrect advice because VSOs are not correctly interpreting the CFR. It isn't about winning IU, It's only about the rating criteria in 38 CFR 4.16 paragraph (a) and about common etiology in sub-section (2).

Yes, I did use my own current rating to pose the question, and that probably lead people to believe I was referring to myself (and all the advice on how I might win my IU case -- which doesn't exist), but the rating used in this question could have been setup many different ways, I just used mine because it does fall into this category I'm talking about. The answer I'm looking for has nothing at all to do with winning an IU case, it's about a situation that many vets find themselves in, where their current rating appears to preclude them from even applying for IU, but only if their VSO doesn't read the CFR completely.

This question came up in a conversation I had with another veteran a couple years ago. He disagreed with me on my interpretation of the CFR, and I could never understand why. So, I asked several more people, and so far, everyone disagrees with me. I don't get it.

To me, it looks so simple, but obviously, it's not so simple to many people.

Thanks again, everyone.

Did you not read #8 post in this thread ?

"I completely agree with your common etiology theory - that part to me, is a no brainer."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Examples - Common Etiology:

Here's some BVA cases that are not "hypothetical" these are tried and true decisions and

clearly address your theory in regards to - 4.16a, factoring in common etiology for a combined

60% disability, thus eligibility is established (in this regard only) for IU.

1)

http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files4/1225932.txt

"While the Veteran does not have a single disability rated at 40 percent and it does not appear at first glance that the requisite percentage standards for consideration of a TDIU for multiple disabilities under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) are met, disabilities resulting from a common etiology or a single accident, or from multiple injuries incurred in action, or from multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war, may be considered on a combined basis for the purposes of establishing one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability rating. 38 U.S.C.A. § 4.16(a)(1).

Therefore, with application of the aforementioned provision in mind, the Board finds that the Veteran's six service-connected disabilities all arise from his service in Vietnam, including exposure to herbicides, and thus all result from a common etiology. The Board notes that these disabilities met the criteria for presumptive service condition for exposure to herbicides in the Republic of Vietnam as follows: carcinoma of the lung at 30 percent; coronary artery disease at 30 percent; diabetes mellitus at 10 percent; and for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities secondary to diabetes at 10 percent. Therefore, the Board finds that all of these disabilities may be combined and form the basis for the establishment of a disability rated as at least 60 percent disabling under 38 C.F.R. § 4.25, for purposes of a TDIU as having a common etiology. Thus, as the Veteran has one disability rated at 60 percent, he clearly meets the minimum percent rating requirement of 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). Consequently, the schedular standards for consideration of a TDIU under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) are met."

2)

http://www.va.gov/vetapp13/Files5/1341275.txt

"TDIU

TDIU is a potential element of all increased rating claims. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). In the instant case there is extensive evidence of unemployability related to the service connected right knee disability.

TDIU is granted when a Veteran's service connected disabilities render him or her unemployable; those disabilities are rated less than total, and there is at least one disability rated 40 percent or more and sufficient other service connected disability to yield a combined rating of 70 percent or more; or a single disability rated 60 percent or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a). For purposes of TDIU, disabilities of common etiology or accident, and injuries incurred in action will be considered a single disability.

In addition to the knee disabilities discussed above, the Veteran is service connected for posttraumatic stress disorder, rated 30 percent disabling since August 10, 2009; multiple rib scars, rated 10 percent disabling, a right great toe disability as secondary to the right knee disability, evaluated as 10 percent disabling. The combined rating would be 100 percent prior to July 1, 2009; and at least 60 percent since that date. These disabilities are all the result of injuries incurred in action and are of common etiology. Hence the percentage requirements are met."

3)

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files5/0838043.txt

"But the regulations provide that for purposes of determining
eligibility for TDIU, disabilities of a common etiology are
considered one disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a)(2). When
service connection for plantar fasciitis was granted in
March 1999, the veteran's plantar fasciitis disabilities were
determined to be secondary to his bilateral pes planus
disability. Since his disabilities are of a common etiology,
this veteran is deemed to have one disability. As the
combined rating for that disability is at least 60 percent,
the veteran is eligible for TDIU.

The next step is to determine whether the veteran is
unemployable-that is, whether any service-connected
impairment of mind or body is present that is sufficient to
render it impossible for the average person to follow a
substantially gainful occupation. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340(a)(1),
4.15. In evaluating a veteran's employability, consideration
may be given to his level of education, special training, and
previous work experience in arriving at a conclusion, but not
to his age or impairment caused by nonservice-connected
disabilities. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.16, 4.19. The sole fact
that a claimant is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining
employment is not enough. A high rating in itself is
recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain
and keep employment. Rather, the question is whether the
veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts
required by employment, not whether the veteran can find
employment. 38 C.F.R. §4.16(a)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Did you not read #8 post in this thread ?

"I completely agree with your common etiology theory - that part to me, is a no brainer."

No, I didn't see that post until you just pointed it out. I don't think I'm seeing some of these posts in their proper order. I don't know why I don't see some of them right away. Maybe has something to do with how they're moderated, I don't know. I also just noticed post #12 for the first time and GatorNavy agrees with me too.

Like you said, I see the common etiology in this scenario as a no-brainer, but I've had a lot of people argue against it -- including two professional VSOs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

My opinion is that the veteran is qualified for tdiu as long as the legs are secondary to the back and its all clear as day.

Im my case I b elieave I will soon be rated 50% for hearing loss and 10% for tinitus. This is 55% by VA math and rounds up to a 60% rating.

Since ringing of the ears and hearing loss are both from the same etiology I feel I am warranted to apply for tdiu and will do so.

Rather the va grants or not is a differant matter but I do feel that your situation and mine as well both warrant the Bear minimum for tdiu purposes.

With that stated...I feel that the back and legs equalling 60% will be a harder battle than a total of 60% coming from the same etoligy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines