Form 9 Due - What Should I Say?

[TiredCoastie]

So I've appealed several denied conditions for service connection or the rating received and have been sitting on the SOC in part waiting to see what my second appeal will do and in part dealing with an unrelated ongoing family crisis. Whew.

So this weekend, I've got to get the Form 9 completed and filed.

I think I did a pretty good job describing why the RO's decisions were wrong in my NODs but the SOC shows that they sticking by their determinations. Should I rewrite those descriptions or, seeing as nothing has changed since I filed the last NOD, would it be OK to just copy and paste my rationale into the Form 9 and fire it off? Or would it be beneficial to add more meat quoting BVA decisions?

[Stretch]

It is like Berta has said for years look to the SOC for clues and Ques. There are certain questions that they want answered in their rational. You have to dig these out and rebut or answer them.

Like one time they said I had a truck stuck in my nose. Well this one was easy and was horse crap. Other statements they make could to be relevant to questions they need answered. Every SOC or SSOC could be different and sometimes cut and paste. You should go over SOC several times. I have numbered every contention and numbered evidence to corespond to that number. Organization helps.

[TiredCoastie]

Thanks, Stretch.

Guess in my case it's the one side against the other - "yes, it is!" versus "no, it's not!" They've thrown back the same rationale in the original decision and are sticking by that. So my hope and prayer is that the BVA will seem my argument differently and decide in my favor. I don't have any additional evidence or any other argument to make other than what I've already made.

I did separate the two contentions I'm appealing and numbered them for ease of those trying to figure it out.

[Buck52]

TiredCoastie

I'm thinking starting in 2015 the VBA can over ride any decision made by RO either way denials or awards!

.. I have not read the new '' V.B.M'' published by'' Lexis Nexis'' so not sure?

' just from comments by other members here.

So I'm thinking you may need to ask for a VBA Hearing once you get answers on SOC because you will probably be denied again (without new evidence)...but they could send it back to RO.

Just my opinion

Its like there throwing the hot patato back & forth to each other...but this can be solved

Some of the senior members here at hadit could help you Berta, Carlie, John999, & Stretch makes some good points here as well.

Just hang in there Buddy

[Gastone]

TC: I got everything awarded at DRO level, never saw or paid any attention to the 9. With that said, you've got 60 days. make the most of it. I think at the very least, time permitting, you get a free consult with a BVA Accredited Attorney. I did (03/2014) regarding my 06/2014 DRO Hearing. I talked indirectly with 2 different National Advertised VA Appeals Law firms, both wanted me to drop the DRO Hearing and proceed to BVA. The local VA Appeals attorney agreed with just about everything I was doing and said I should be good to go at DRO. She said if I wasn't comfortable reping myself at the Hearing she'd do it for 20% of Retro. If for some reason the VA continued the denial, she would be glad to rep me at VBA & CAVC if needed, but didn't think BVA or CAVC would be necessary. She was right. She did offer a piece of advice that I incorporated in my DRO Hearing and it worked.

From recent review of 2014 BVA Decisions, it appears to me that a 3-5 year lag time is not uncommon, with Beau Coup Remands thrown in.

Your C-File will remain at your VARO all the way up to approx 4 months before it is transferred to the BVA for your Scheduled Hearing. During this time at the VARO, any and all "New & Material Evidence" received by the VARO will trigger a "VARO Review of Denied Claim." If the Denial is continued, a Supplemental-Statement of case is prepared and forwarded to you and your Rep. Note, this review is conducted by a Senior VA Rater or a DRO. Deference is given to the original Denial Decision.

What do you think your appealed issues rate per 38 CFR 4? If these are Non SC Rated issues, your at 80 now, you would have to get 1 at 50+% for any movement.

Think about IU, when you got your 80%, it had to be listed as an "inferred Claim Pending." That would get you to the 100% pay much quicker than your appeal. You could still continue to your BVA Hearing, a couple bithdays down the road.

Semper Fi

Gastone

[TiredCoastie]

Thanks, guys. This is a little like a hot potato exercise. Thanks to the way life has gone, I don't have time to get to an attorney before the Friday filing deadline. But having to sit down and think through it again, after your responses, has helped me with my arguments.

One of my two main contentions are that my migraines are rated at 30%, and I think they should be at 50%. The question will be whether or not they produce severe economic impact. Proving that for me rests on the statement made by my neurologist that I cannot work when flattened, which occurs up to 5 days per month but averages around 2. I don't know how much stronger a case I can make. I feel like I'm only a reliable employee in the morning due to the time when the migraines, if they get bad enough, take over. Meanwhile, on those days they don't completely take over, I'm hampered from doing a good job. This is going to be a difficult argument to make, but -- thanks to talking this through with you all -- I think I've got more ammunition.

The other is a condition that causes cerebral thromboses resulting in TIAs. I've been on blood thinners for several years. I originally claimed TIAs only (which is actually the claim decision I'm appealing now; second NOD has not yet appeared for processing although they say they've got it via IRIS), then added additional evidence for the cerebral thrombosis via a new DBQ on a "request for reconsideration." In their decision on the "reconsideration claim," the VA again denied service connection for the TIAs and did not SC this newly reported condition either although solid evidence was provided - in fact they didn't even mention it which amounts to a denial. One point the VA makes is that no long term disability persits. Sure, BUT...shouldn't they at least service connect the condition that clearly arose during my last years on active duty and came out strongly in my first year after discharge, then rate me at 0% then? If I'd actually had that stroke with permanent damage (rather than a simple lingering tingling and numbness in a portion of my face), this would be cut-and-dry. I almost had a stroke trying to figure out the underlying condition...

Gastone, you're right that I'm not going to get much further with a percentage and that's OK. If the migraine increase is successful, I might eck out enough to round up to 90%. Unless some entity at some level decides that I've got a significant ratable disability from the cerebral thromboses, or the new-and-material evidence filed after this Form 9 is the hospital and doctor records from an actual stroke, I don't think my rating is going to hit 100%. I have considered TDIU, but would rather work even at a reduced level if I can find the work that fits my disability. At worst I can still sit at my computer and write books...and ask AskNOD if that pays! No, the bigger issue is that the cerebral thomboses can kill me or leave me severely and profoundly disabled. If they do, I have a wife and a developmentally disabled child. They deserve to either have the way paved for 100%+ & A&A or DIC. My wife and child are the bottom line in this fight.

Honestly, I would not be in this far along today if it weren't for Berta, AskNod, Carlie, John, and bunch of the other elders, fellow sufferers, and insiders who have counseled so many through this site, and am truly grateful for the wisdom passed on that got me this far.

As an aside, I did get a couple of CUEs out of the RO when they reviewed my initial NOD, granting SC/rating increase back to the original claim date, so agree that the second look through the RO isn't always a complete waste. This victory was the result of help from Hadit.

Semper Paratus!

[carlie]

One of my two main contentions are that my migraines are rated at 30%, and I think they should be at 50%. The question will be whether or not they produce severe economic impact. Proving that for me rests on the statement made by my neurologist that I cannot work when flattened, which occurs up to 5 days per month but averages around

What exactly and all is stated in the RD that granted the 30% evaluation for your migraines ?

Did they use DC 8100 ?

Have you submitted medical evidence into the record, that rebuts the current 30% and

fully supports the higher 50 % evaluation ?

BTW - I think you've been doing really good so far.

jmho