These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.
Service Connection
Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected.
Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.
Effective Dates
Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.
I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful. We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did. He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims. He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file. It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to 1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015. It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me. He didn't want my copies. Anyone have any information on this. Much thanks in advance.
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
Question
carlie
A great Approved EED Tinnitus Claim:
http://www.va.gov/vetapp92/files2/9217066.txt
Tinnitus Not Reported in Service - Granted w/nexus of Hearing Loss:
http://www.va.gov/vetapp92/files2/9219321.txt
**************************************************************
Another great Tinnitus case:
92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-28565
Y92
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420
DOCKET NO. 92-53 160 ) DATE
)
)
)
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than
September 21, 1987, for the award of service connection for
tinnitus.
2. Entitlement to a total disability evaluation based on
individual unemployability due to service-connected
disabilities.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Inc.
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The appellant
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
C. S. Freret, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The appellant had active military service from March 1964 to
March 10, 1967.
A claim for entitlement to service connection for ringing in
the ears was received on May 4, 1967. In an October 1967
rating decision, the Jackson, Mississippi, Regional Office
(hereinafter RO) did not address the appellant's claim of
entitlement to service connection for ringing in the ears.
In a notice of disagreement received by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) in December 1967, the
appellant appealed the denial of service connection for ear
disability. In a substantive appeal received in January
1968, the appellant continued to argue for service
connection for ringing in the ears.
A claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus
was received on September 21, 1988. In a December 1988
rating decision, the RO granted service connection for
tinnitus and assigned a 10 percent evaluation, effective
September 21, 1987, under the provisions of 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.114(a).
In September 1989, the appellant filed a claim for an
effective date earlier than September 21, 1987, for the
assignment of a 10 percent evaluation for his
service-connected tinnitus. In a November 1989 rating
decision, the RO denied an earlier effective date for the
award of a 10 percent evaluation for tinnitus, stating that
a grant of service connection for tinnitus due to acoustic
trauma had not been possible prior to March 10, 1976, and
that subsequent to that date the appellant's claim for
entitlement to service connection for tinnitus had been
received on September 21, 1988. The appellant was notified
of the November 1989 rating decision by letter dated in
January 1990, and he did not file an appeal within one year
thereafter.
This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter Board) on appeal of rating decisions by the RO,
dated in January 1991 and in April 1991. In the January
1991 rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to a total
disability evaluation based on individual unemployability
due to service-connected disabilities. A notice of
disagreement as to the January 1991 rating decision was
received in March 1991, and, at the same time, the appellant
requested an earlier effective date for the grant of
service-connected compensation for his tinnitus. In the
April 1991 rating decision, the RO determined that no new
and material evidence had been presented to permit reopening
of the claim of entitlement to an effective date earlier
than September 21, 1987, for the grant of service-connected
compensation for tinnitus. A statement of the case was
issued in April 1991. The substantive appeal was received
in June 1991. The appellant presented testimony at a
personal hearing conducted at the RO in August 1991, and the
hearing officer rendered a decision in September 1991. A
supplemental statement of the case was issued in September
1991. The case was received and docketed at the Board in
January 1992, at which time it was referred to the
appellant's representative, Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Inc., who submitted a statement in support of the
appellant's claims in February 1992. The case is now ready
for appellate consideration.
The issue of entitlement to a total disability evaluation
based on individual unemployability due to service-connected
disabilities will be dealt with in the REMAND portion of
this decision.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL
The appellant asserts that the RO committed error in not
assigning an effective date earlier than September 21, 1987,
for the grant of a 10 percent disability evaluation for his
tinnitus. He contends that his initial claim of entitlement
to service connection for tinnitus was filed in May 1967 and
was never adjudicated, thereby remaining open until the
December 1988 rating decision which granted service
connection for tinnitus and assigned a 10 percent evaluation
effective September 21, 1987, under the provisions of 38
C.F.R. § 3.114(a).
DECISION OF THE BOARD
In accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104
(West 1991), following review and consideration of all
evidence and material of record in the appellant's claims
file, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the
decision of the Board that the November 1989 rating
decision, which denied an earlier effective date for the
grant of a 10 percent evaluation for tinnitus was clearly
and unmistakably erroneous, and that the evidence shows that
the proper effective date for the award of a 10 percent
disability evaluation for tinnitus is March 10, 1976. The
effective date for the grant of service connection for
tinnitus at a noncompensable rate is March 11, 1967.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. A claim for entitlement to service connection for
tinnitus was received on May 4, 1967, and was still pending
at the time of the December 1988 rating decision which
granted service connection for tinnitus and assigned a
10 percent evaluation, effective September 21, 1987, under
the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a).
2. The November 1989 rating decision was clearly and
unmistakably erroneous in ruling that, prior to March 10,
1976, service connection could only be granted for tinnitus
if the tinnitus was due to head trauma.
3. The effective date for the grant of service connection
for tinnitus at a noncompensable rate is March 11, 1967.
The effective date of a 10 percent evaluation for tinnitus
is March 10, 1976.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The November 1989 rating decision was clearly and
unmistakably erroneous in denying an effective date earlier
than September 21, 1987, for the grant of service-connected
compensation for tinnitus. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 1155,
5107, 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(a), 4.87(a),
Diagnostic Code 6260 (1991).
2. An effective date of March 11, 1967, is warranted for a
noncompensable rating for tinnitus, and an effective date of
March 10, 1976, is warranted for a 10 percent evaluation for
tinnitus. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107, 5110(a) (West 1991);
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.114(a), 3.160©, 3.400, 4.87(a), Diagnostic
Code 6260, effective March 10, 1976 (1991).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) have been met, in
that the appellant's claims are well-grounded and adequately
developed.
Tinnitus
Review of the appellant's claims file reveals that a claim
for entitlement to service connection for ringing in the
ears was received on May 4, 1967. The appellant tried to
continue to prosecute that claim in statements received in
December 1967 and January 1968, which were accepted as a
notice of disagreement and a substantive appeal,
respectively, as to other issues. However, the RO did not
attempt to develop or decide the appellant's claim for
entitlement to service connection for tinnitus until he
again requested service connection for this disability in
September 1988. Pursuant to the September 1988 request by
the appellant, the RO granted service connection for
tinnitus in a December 1988 rating decision and assigned an
effective date of September 21, 1987, under the provisions
of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a)(3). Those
provisions permit authorization of benefits for a period of
one year prior to the date of receipt of a request by a
claimant to review a claim following liberalizing
legislation, if the request for review was more than one
year after the effective date of such liberalizing
legislation.
As the appellant did not timely file an appeal of the
November 1989 rating decision which denied an earlier
effective date for the grant of service-connected
compensation for tinnitus, that decision is final in the
absence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.105(a). That rating decision denied the appellant's
claim on the basis that service connection could only be
granted for tinnitus prior to March 10, 1976, if the
tinnitus had been caused by head trauma. This is clearly
and unmistakably erroneous because service connection could
be granted for tinnitus prior to March 10, 1976, if the
facts demonstrated it was incurred in or aggravated by
service. Prior to March 10, 1976, a compensable rating
could be awarded for tinnitus only if it was due to head
trauma. Therefore, as the November 1989 rating decision was
clearly and unmistakably erroneous, it is not final.
The evidence presented in this case shows that the appellant
had a continuous pending claim for entitlement to service
connection for tinnitus from May 4, 1967, to the December
1988 rating decision that granted service connection for
tinnitus. 38 C.F.R. § 3.160©. Thus, the Board finds that
the December 1988 rating decision should have granted
service connection for tinnitus effective March 11, 1967,
the day after the appellant's separation from service,
because his May 4, 1967, claim was filed within the first
year following his separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §
3.400(b)(2).
Effective March 10, 1976, liberalizing legislation expanded
the instances for a veteran to receive a 10 percent
evaluation for tinnitus to include acoustic trauma (which
the December 1988 rating decision determined to be the cause
of the appellant's tinnitus). The Board finds that a 10
percent evaluation for tinnitus should be effective as of
the date of liberalizing legislation, March 10, 1976. A
noncompensable rating is in order from March 11, 1967, to
March 9, 1976.
ORDER
An effective date of March 11, 1967, is granted for the
award of a noncompensable evaluation for tinnitus and an
effective date of March 10, 1976, is granted for the award
of a 10 percent disability evaluation for tinnitus, subject
to controlling regulations governing the payment of monetary
awards.
Carlie passed away in November 2015 she is missed.
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
Nov 12
1
Top Posters For This Question
carlie 1 post
Popular Days
Nov 12 2006
1 post
0 answers to this question
Recommended Posts