Great Schizophrenia Cue

[Berta 4,215]

I had to help a advocate/ member from our old 2005 hadit board today... a very convoluted case.

and I found this great CUE award to help him with:

Schizophrenia is a psychosis falling under the Chronic presumptives.

He is the veteran's POA , although not a vet rep, ....VA allows almost anyone to rep vets, I forget the criteria for his limited accreditation.....and he is trying to re -open a past denied claim as well as file a CUE on a 1981 claim for the veteran regarding schizophrenia..

Dont know if anyone posted this CUE here yet...I think it is delicious..

"Moreover, per a recent decision of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit),
when a chronic disease is shown in service, subsequent
manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later
date, however remote, are service connected. 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.303(b), see Groves v. Peake, 524 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (holding that when a chronic disease is identified in
service and at any time after service, service connection
will be granted without the need for nexus evidence). In
this case, service treatment records reflect a diagnosis of
paranoid schizophrenia in June 1971, and the evidence of
record on file at the time of the December 1973 decision
reflects that he was hospitalized in September 1973 (two
years after separation from service) due to paranoid
schizophrenia. Thus, a chronic disease was shown in
service, and subsequent manifestations of the same chronic
disease was shown within two years of separation from
service."

ORDER

The December 1973 rating decision which denied service
connection for paranoid schizophrenia contained clear and
unmistakable error. The appeal is granted.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/files1/1001265.txt

Whatever the rating became, that is a very nice chunk of retro for 37 YEARS!

Grover V Peake...... SMRs reveal a chronic disability....

subsequent med recs reveal the same continuous chronic disability....

therefore no nexus from the after -service condition is needed because it is the same inservice condition.

This can probably cause many denials at the RO levels because some disabilities have more than one medical name, and often,fopr an example, an inservice diagnosis of a type of cancer can end up being a far different nomenclature after service but actually the exact same type of cancer.

Or the vet claims a metasasized condition instead of the primary condition which it would be secondary to,.....that too can create problems.

In this case above ,I helped with today, I felt the original claim was prepared wrong and the CUE,when fixed, and re filed will perhaps seal the deal.

The advocate also overlooked one word in one of the regs, that had caused a past denial.

We sure have to read these regs VERY carefully.

[Pete53 0]

Its funny but almost anybody may be a better representative than some of the so called Service Officers. I think Hadit does a better job than many of our Service Officers. Just my 2 cents.

[carlie 56]

Berta,

VA-VOOM . . . Great CUE case.

Thanks.

[Berta 4,215]

Pete , I think the VSOs and the VA should get their training here.

[laceup541691 4]

This is what I am hoping to prove by reopening my claim that was not service connected but under usc38 sec1702 

hopefully you will be able to help me Berta! :)

[Berta 4,215]

I gave some advice in 2 of your other topics today.