To Cue, Or Not To Cue, That Is The Question My Friends.

[Andyman73]

I was looking over some of my recent claim info regarding a granted increase on my back from 10 to 40%. C&P Doc wrote that this is the natural progression of the disease(DDD). And she noted that there was an X-ray from my AD time that showed then the DDD already starting. . And she noted that this should have been the original diagnosis as well. The original rating was/is still for low back pain.

Can some of you well versed VA claim Warriors give me some input on this? Thanks!

Semper Fi.

Andy

[Andyman73]

Thanks, Buck, I appreciate it.

Semper Fi.

Andy

[Berta]

There is some confusing information here.

The Diagnostic Codes can be found about half way down the VA Schedule of Ratings, link is here at hadit to that.

Someone said:

"So a wrong diagnosis is not grounds to file a CUE."

But a wrong diagnostic code is, if detrimental to the claimant.

If the DC is wrong,to the detriment of the veteran ( meaning the right DC would have garnered them an award or a high rating, then that is a CUE.

Also I won my AO IHD claim because of the VA's "lack" of any diagnostic code.or rating percentage on the rating sheet for the decision I filed CUE on.

A lack of any % and diagnostic code for a well established disability, is a CUE.

The VBM by NVLSP has a whole chapter, mentioned here before or how VA makes legal errors ,to include using the wrong diagnostic codes.

The rating sheet is a piece of "legal evidence", generated by medical evidence,whether incorrect or not, and can prompt a valid CUE claim, if the information is incorrect, to the detriment of the claimant.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Berta

[Andyman73]

Berta,

Thanks. I have looked at the DC lists and am not sure what my corrected code would be, for the extinct 5295 code. And as far as the DDD goes, I'm not even sure what that would translate to. I only know that the C&P examiner called me at work to discuss the MRI report. And she said that the proper diagnosis should have been the DDD instead of the low back pain, since it is the more serious medical issue. She made a note about the DDD being the correct diagnosis. But the RO just left it with the 5295 code and "low back pain" descriptor. They did bump me from 10 to 40%. She implied that if the DDD had been the original rating code/DC that my original rate of 10% would have been higher.

Does this mean it was detrimental to me? I think so, but that don't mean they will.

As always, Berta, you are the best!

Semper Fi.

Andy