Confused

[cowboys4life]

I have two ratings for same condition. Back in 2002 I submitted both service connected and non-service connected claims. Both were denied and I subsequently won the non-service claim on a CUE. I also won the service connected claim for same condition that I was granted for non-service pension. Here is where I am confused about. If both claims for granted separate from one another but they both were granted back to the original claim date, then why is it that the service connected claim was only for 30% and the non-service claim was for 100% for a severe heart condition. I was 44 years old at the time I filed these claims. Here is the rating decision:

A review of your cited treatment records from the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System shows you were receiving treatment for coronary artery disease. Your past medical history shows you underwent coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG). The records show your coronary artery disease was severe and you had myocardial infarctions. AS the evidence is sufficient to show you were unable to maintain and obtain gainful employment due to non-service connected disability at the time you initially filed your original claim for this benefit, entitlement to a non-service connected pension is granted.

When I was granted service connection for same condition I only received a 30% rating. I need help SO CONFUSED!!!! Have A BVA hearing on Jan.13.15 how should I approach this.

[Philip Rogers]

When and where did you serve?? The reason I ask is whether you are an in-country VN vet.

They could rate you 30% based on your after by-pass disability level but since you can't work, they could pay you at the NSC rate, since it would pay more than the 30% SC rate.

pr

[Navy04]

I agree with Philip on this one bud.

[cowboys4life]

Are you saying that it does not matter what the rating decision was prior to them granting me the appeal for service connection, it does not apply to that previous rating of unemployable. I do not get that one. Does anyone know the regulation on that. On one hand I am unable to maintain gainful employment for non service pension but the same condition rates only 30% for service connection. How is that fair. What, they pretend that they never rated my condition at that level, and somehow after a pacemaker and supraventricular tachycardia, atrial fibrillation,

Edited December 23, 2014 by cowboys4life

[Berta]

Yes, it does matter.

"The VA provides a non-service-connected pension (click here for the payment rate tables) for wartime veterans with low incomes and who are over 64 years old, or to wartime veterans who are totally and permanently disabled for reasons not related to their military service. The pension is intended to provide a guaranteed miniumum income for veterans who qualify. For example: If the veteran has a countable income of $6000 per year with no deductible medical expenses and no dependents, in 2008 the VA would have provided $11,181 - $6000, or $5,181 paid in 12 equal monthly payments."

http://nvf.org/veterans-benefits/wartime-veterans-pension

I am assuming you did not fit into the 'over 64" criteria and that the NSC decision states Permanent and total.

This might help....VA rated my husband's stroke at 80% and deemed it as NSC in a 1998 decision.

The vet rep I had at the time suggested not to NOD the decision because it was an award of DIC under 1151. He said 1151 awards were different then direct SC awards.

The award letter contained the statement that the malpractice included his heart disease and the stroke, and other "multiple deviations from a usual standard of care, all of which "hastened his death."

The rating sheet contained the wrong diagnostic codes, should have been a 100% P & T under 1151 for the stroke and then they should have considered SMC because the veteran already had 100% P & T for PTSD.

But the rep again told me that 1151 awards were different and I believed him...until 2003 when I filed CUE on the stroke and I filed, in 2004 CUE on the heart disease.

The established medical evidence awarded the CUE on both the IHD and the Stroke and SMC.100& P & T ( but for only 6 months...I have CUE pending on that, as the established medical evidence warranted almost 2 years of 1151 retro.)

My point is , what does the NSC pension rating sheet state as to the rating?

Can you possibly scan and attach here that older rating sheet? (Cover C file, name, address prior to scanning it.) and the Reasons and Basis part of the decision on the pension.

The CUEs were awarded in 2012..7 years after I filed them. These days I would have handled those claims differently.

But the fact is if a NSC at 100% P & T becomes a SC at 100% P & T, the VA will deduct the NSC amount they paid from the retro ,in most cases, I am sure, but would have to still award the SC at 100% P & T.

"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." 38 CRR 4.16 (b)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/4.16

One more point, Under Nehmer many vets with IHD in older VA decisions,)1980s and &1990s, rated as NSC, fit into the older IHD criteria for some of those years..

Nehmer rated my husband's IHD ( which was the caused of his death under 1151, and now under SC AO,) as 30% from 1988 to 1994.

Part of that reason was because of the 30% regs during those years and part was due to the fact VA had given him NO medical care for the IHD for the entire 6 years they treated him.

If we can read the NSC decision and rating sheet we can help more.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Berta

[Buck52]

I understand what this veteran is saying I don't understand how they rated him? if they rated him for NSC100% And not able to work or have gainful employment = that is being total disable.

However they rated him under pension and the guidelines are he has to be 65 years old or totally permanent....which don't make a lick of sense to me either if they rated him at 100% disable??????????

This be a good one for asknod!!!

Edited December 24, 2014 by Buck52

[Buck52]

Don't make any sense if they rated him 30% and 100% for the same condition and he can't work due to his medical condition?

The only thing is they rated him 100%under the pension for NSC so if he not 65 or not being totally disable at the time claim was submitted then why did they rate him 100% for NSC? At the same time???

TDIU he has to have been service connected from past military injury and not able to work...the only thing here is they used the pension guidelines & I only assume must be different from NSC Pension vs SC or presumption.

I didn't know they were a difference in a 100%rating vs SC & NSC??

Under VA Law

Periods to Determine Eligibility VA Pension for Gulf War Veterans

August 2nd 1990 through a future date set by law or presidential proclamation.

Edited December 24, 2014 by Buck52