On the veteran's entrance examination he reported problems with his nose but the findings of the exam were normal
.
Decision letter text:
Quote
Service connection for allergic rhinitis/sinusitis has been granted because this condition, which existed prior to military service, permanently worsened as a result of service. The difference between disability evaluations before and after military service determines the degree of disability subject to service connection. Prior to service, the disability is considered 10 percent disabling based on evidence that showed that he always had problems of recurrent rhinitis. Following military discharge, the disability is 30 percent disabling which is the maximum evaluation for allergic rhinitis, because evidence now shows septal deviation and nasal polyps not shown on the veteran's entrance examination. The preservice percentage is always deducted before assigning any service-connected evaluation less than 100 percent. This condition is evaluated as 20 percent disabling.
Rating criteria
Quote
6522 Allergic or vasomotor rhinitis:
With polyps
30
Without polyps, but with greater than 50-percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side
10
This recent BVA CUE win stated the denial was based on verbal statements instead of the presumption of soundness and criteria for aggravation was incorrectly used instead of direct SC. http://www.va.gov/vetapp14/Files3/1422654.txt
Question 1
Could the same CUE logic be applied if subjective statements in STRs by the veteran are given more weight than the presumption of soundness and the claim was treated as aggravation instead of direct SC?
Question 2
If the VA states "the difference between disability evaluations before and after military service determines the degree of disability subject to SC", did the VA correctly reduce by 10% or should 0% have been used because the entrance exam failed to meet 10% criteria?
Question
Vync
Given this situation:
Entrance exam
Decision letter text:
Rating criteria
This recent BVA CUE win stated the denial was based on verbal statements instead of the presumption of soundness and criteria for aggravation was incorrectly used instead of direct SC.
http://www.va.gov/vetapp14/Files3/1422654.txt
Question 1
Could the same CUE logic be applied if subjective statements in STRs by the veteran are given more weight than the presumption of soundness and the claim was treated as aggravation instead of direct SC?
Question 2
If the VA states "the difference between disability evaluations before and after military service determines the degree of disability subject to SC", did the VA correctly reduce by 10% or should 0% have been used because the entrance exam failed to meet 10% criteria?
Thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
Mar 8
1
Top Posters For This Question
Vync 1 post
Popular Days
Mar 8 2016
1 post
0 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now