Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Nod 485 Days And Counting

Rate this question


air1

Question

Nod over 480 days,the national average 405 days.What is longest for NOD,are they not suppose to be quicker than this,in Huntungton ro,i thought they were fast.Claim is 38 months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

All NOD's are suppose to be processed as the RO receives them , the only faster way is hardship cases.

Backlog is the reason it takes so long not because of the new claims.

email Ms Hickey again she may not got your email you know how the VA is.

.........................Buck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

Appeals are controlled by the date of receipt of the NOD in a system called VACOLS (Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System). A single NOD may express disagreement the decisions rendered in a single Rating Decision, or it may express disagreement with decisions rendered in multiple Rating Decisions which have been issued in the prior year. There is no limit to the number of decisions or ratings with which the Veteran may disagree. There is also no limit to the number of NODs a veteran may have pending at any given time. A Veteran may also continue to file new claims while his appeal(s) pend.

If a Veteran requests a Regional Office hearing, this must be conducted and must receive the transcript before a decision can be rendered. If the Veteran submits or identifies additional evidence, VA must develop for and try to obtain the evidence prior to rendering a decision. If VA examinations are deemed necessary, VA schedule these and wait for the examination reports before rendering a decision.

Once the appeal issues are ready for decision (RFD), ideally, NODs should be worked from the oldest pending to the newest received, with the exception of priorities, which include Homeless Veterans, Seriously Injured/Wounded Veterans, Congressional Inquiries, and Financial Hardship cases, etc. Priorities are worked before all other pending claims.

This also means that a Veteran who has filed multiple NODs over time, may only receive a decision concerning his oldest pending NOD, while the issues contained in his other “younger” NODs remain pending.

...................Buck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Moderator

Free Spirit

Yes. If you submit evidence AFTER the SOC, they are required to send a SSOC (Supplemental Statement of Case). However, if you dont submit any more evidece after received the SOC, then your case should move forward, if the VARO is so inclined.

Im sure you know that, when you get the SOC, you are required to file the I9, correct? If you dont/didnt file the required I9 timely, then your claim dies. I9 is here: http://www.va.gov/vaforms/va/pdf/VA9.pdf

You have 60 days to file the I9 after receipt of the SOC.

Remember it this way: The Veteran has multiple deadlines to keep (1 year to file a NOD, 60 days to file I9, etc). The VA, however, has no deadlines ever. They take as long as they want to process your claim and you wait, no matter how long it takes.

Interestingly, here is what "Vetsfirst" says about "delays". The courts cant seem to understand what "expiditious" means, because Board Remands tell VA they have to act expiditiously. Based on case law, "expiditious" apparently means the VA can wait more than 2.5 years, but not a decade. However, a Veteran must file his NOD "timely" which means within 365 days. Its interesting the courts call "expiditious" a 2.5 year delay, when we fail to "timely" appeal, our NOD is denied.

"The Secretary has a statutory obligation to expeditiously process remands from this Court. Thus, not only must the Secretary ensure that he completes the Court-ordered task, he must do so in an expeditious manner. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. Excessive delays in the processing of remands ordered by the Court cannot help but sap public confidence and impugn the Court's dignity, as from the outside it invariably appears that VA is ignoring the valid mandates of an institution that has express authority over it in matters related to veterans benefits. See Erspamer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 3 (1990) (discussing delay in administrative action and public confidence).

Furthermore, the Secretary's obligation to process Court remands expeditiously is integral to this Court's jurisdictional authority to remedy unreasonable delays in the processing of veterans' claims. See Vietnam Veterans of America v. Shinseki, 599 F.3d 654, 659–660 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (suggesting that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims may have exclusive jurisdiction over claims concerning unreasonable delays in processing); see also Ribaudo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 552, 557 (2007) ("With respect to matters relating to veterans-benefits claims, however, Congress adopted a very different approach to judicial review. A decision of the Board can only be appealed to a single venue—this Court." (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a))). Therefore, failure by the Secretary to comply with his obligation to process Court remands expeditiously, is the same as noncompliance with the remand order itself, even if the Secretary eventually complies with the substance of the order. Harvey v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 284, 288 (2011).

"While there is no absolute definition of what is reasonable time, we know that it may encompass 'months, occasionally a year or two, but not several years or a decade.'" Community Nutrition Institute v. Young, 773 F.2d 1356, 1361 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (quoting MCI Communications Corp. v. FCC, 627 F.2d 322, 340 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Erspamer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 3, 10 (1990). When delay is alleged as the basis for a petition for writ of mandamus, a clear and indisputable right to the writ does not exist unless the petitioner demonstrates that the alleged delay is so extraordinary, given the demand on and resources of the Secretary, that it is equivalent to an arbitrary refusal to act. Compare Costanza v. West, 12 Vet. App. 133, 134 (1999) (per curiam order) (addressing an 11–month delay and finding the petitioner did not demonstrate that he lacked alternative means of relief when he did not undertake to resolve delay prior to filing the petition), with Erspamer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 3, 11 (1990) (addressing a three-year delay and finding petitioner had no adequate alternative means for relief when she contacted the regional office more than 30 times before filing her petition with the Court)."

Edited by broncovet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Thanks everyone, first I will email Ms hickey again but how do I make sure its read. Second, i did filed Nod 12/2013,10/2014 had DRO hearing after my Senator contacted RO office, had and IMO done and introduce April before the hearing,the hearing officer said she would do something for me after the recorder was turned off,but my case is 39 months old, and I am afraid that if I try Ms Hickey that the DRO might change her mind and not rule in my favor, i have been putting off heart surgery to wait to get this done for my 11 year old daughter, just in case something go wrong. Any advice appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Oddly enough, another contretemps can occur. If you receive a SOC, you have sixty days to file a VA 9 OR, and a very large OR, you may file new and material evidence to rebut the SOC. In this case (I did it) VA has to issue a new decision denying it and a SSOC informing you of this. You then legally have 30 days and not one sunset more to file the VA 9. I do not suggest it as it will sometimes cause even more litigation as to whether you legally complied with the original SOC, but that is the actual regulation as written. See 38 CFR 19.31. I have actually played this poker game with not one but three SSOC rebuttals before handing over the magic VA 9 and succumbing to that inevitable appeal. VA's VR&E gomers were so dumb they forgot to answer the last SSOC rebuttal and left it hanging unanswered. This is perfect ammo to take to the VLJ at a Board hearing. "Your honor, they didn't even deign to answer me so I was forced to file the VA 9. Please sir. Would you look at my new and material evidence they ignored?" This is what Bob Walsh and I did at my Travel Board hearing in Seattle last week. To say VLJ Vito Clemente was "disturbed" by VR&E's indifference to answering the SSOC is a masterpiece of understatement.

The whole purpose of appeal is to resolve your disagreement at the Regional Office locally. Appeals should be rare and based on case or controversy (or both). We now have a program best described these days as "develop to deny". I speak of a bare, conclusory glossing over of a FDC, a desperate search for some minute flaw or credibility issue, and an unsupported denial based on an undeveloped, or poorly developed, record. This method buys more time for the next in-basket at the DRO. Producing new evidence should by rights provoke a real, nuanced reexamination at your RO. It rarely does unless the evidence is so incontrovertible as to be exculpatory. VAROs, being under the gun to eliminate the backlog, merely play three downs and punts on fourth and long to the BVA. There, the backlog continues to metastasize like a malignant cancer as we all know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use