Delete

[Guest rickb54]

deleted

Edited February 19, 2007 by rickb54

[john999]

No way is every veteran rated as IU going to get HB benefits. I will believe it when I see it. We are talking about one decision that is going to extend HB benefits to every IU vet? There is a difference between not being able to work and being housebound. A lot of people can't work enought to support themselves but they are not housebound. They just cannot hack 40 hours a week or can't make enough money to support themselves.

[Philip Rogers]

Rick - I have no doubt that the OGC will be offering an opinion, however to me, many PTSD vets have issues that cause them to be confined to home. Whether they will win in the long run has yet to be decided. This is the first I've seen regarding this issue and it's time is due. I'm glad the court is finally dealing with this issue. It can mean an additional $500 +/- monthly to a vet, at least that's what I saw at the lowest level of SMC. Here's hoping, anyway! jmo

pr

John,

I understand what your saying, but the decision states that":

Absent a regulation by the Secretary defining the term "substantially confined," we conclude that the term may conceivably be more broadly construed to incorporate the facts considered here. It is significant that "Congress intended to provide additional compensation for veterans who were unable to overcome their particular disabilities and leave the house in order to earn an income as opposed to an inability to leave the house at all." Cf. Howell v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 535, 540 (2006).

[john999]

Wel Bros if something comes down as final for us IU guys to get HB I will say I heard it here first. I never thought S.E. Asia vets would ever be considered for AO presumption so I am not always right. You can see how the VA is fighting this decision tooth and nail to expand the AO presumptive to Blue Water Navy vets.

[Vike17]

Rick,

From the way I read it, I don't think the Court was making any suggestions that IU veterans would be able to obtain Housebound benefits at the 60% rating.

I think the Court was just making reference to the fact that if a veteran his housbound, naturally, they would be unable to secure any employment. One has to remember that disability ratings are actually suppose to be reflective of a veterans ability to work. For example, if a veteran is 90% disabled, they are suppose to be able to work. If they are not, then that's why there is IU. Does this make sense?

Vike 17

[Philip Rogers]

Vike17,

I don't think the court was making that suggestion either but were interpreting the HB rule in an expanded manner. The VA routinely denies vets claims for HB based on whether the claimant can walk 100 yards, attend medical appointments, attend therapy groups, eat at a restaurant, ride in a car, mow his lawn, etc. According to the VA one must be virtually bedridden to qualify. By expanding this interpretation it opens the door for many PTSD vets, who find it extremely difficult to leave their homes, to possibly be awarded this additional compensation. I think many have undiagnosed agoraphobia, as part of their PTSD syptoms. I think th VA does this in an effort to keep awards to a minimum, much like they do when they leave out section 4.16(b.), in a denial of a TDIU claim. The less the claimant knows the easier it is to keep them from winning. jmo

pr

Rick,

From the way I read it, I don't think the Court was making any suggestions that IU veterans would be able to obtain Housebound benefits at the 60% rating.

I think the Court was just making reference to the fact that if a veteran his housbound, naturally, they would be unable to secure any employment. One has to remember that disability ratings are actually suppose to be reflective of a veterans ability to work. For example, if a veteran is 90% disabled, they are suppose to be able to work. If they are not, then that's why there is IU. Does this make sense?

Vike 17

[Berta]

NVLSP cites Hyder V Derwinski ,1 vet app at 221 as showing how the VA determines total and permanent disability in pension claims.

Also the BVA published a Memorandum in 38 CFR 3.321.

This is different than a P & T status for SC vets.

Also extraschedular grants of pension can be made in some cases.

As I read this decision I seem to feel that the SMC issue was left up to the RO on remand. The VBM has a considerable amount of information on NSC pension claims which are unlike SC claims and depend on many factors.