Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • Donate Now and Keep Us Helping You

     

  • 0

For Berta - Fyi - I Got This From Another Site

Rate this question


Question

Posted

I don't know anything about this just passing it on as I know you keep up with anything dealing with Nehmer.

carlie

From another website:

Philly is in charge of reviewing all CLL claims for earlier effective date under the Nehmer stipulation. The RO's received guidance in mid-September that they would be receiving lists from D.C. of all the claims that would need to be sent there.

CLL is not currently listed in VA's regulation governing Nehmer claims (38 CFR 3.816). This is because it was not added to the list of presumptive disabilities until after the expiration of the Agent Orange Act. VA is in the process of appealing the U.S. District Court of Northern California's Clarification Order that expanded Nehmer to include CLL.

At the present time, the court's order in Nehmer supercedes the regulations exclusion of CLL. Therefore, the Nehmer regulation will apply to CLL claims for eligible claimants until further notice.

It has been deemed absolutely critical that all RO's forward the specified folders requested by D.C. to the Philly RO for expeditious and correct processing. VA is operating under strict deadlines and failure to comply with the Nehmer criteria could result in court-ordered sanctions.

Carlie passed away in November 2015 she is missed.

  • Answers 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

Posted

Thanks Carlie- yeah the VA tried to squeeze out of CLL vets too---

they were granting CLL claims but were giving the EED as Oct 16, 2003 as the EED instead of the date of the claim.

NVLSP explains here what they are goig to do about that:

"VA says Nehmer Retroactive Benefit Rules Don't Apply to New Presumptive Agent Orange Condition

National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) believes VA is wrongly failing to pay retroactive disability and DIC benefits to veterans and surviving family members who have applied for benefits based on chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL)—the latest disease added by the VA to the list of diseases presumptively service connected due to exposure to Agent Orange. Although the Consent Decree in Nehmer generally requires VA to pay benefits for Agent Orange-related diseases retroactive to the date the claim is filed, the VA announced on October 16, 2003, when it published its CLL regulation, that it believes the Nehmer rules do not apply to CLL. As a result, the VA has been assigning October 16, 2003, rather than the date of claim, as the effective date for benefits awarded under the CLL regulation.

NVLSP intends to challenge the VA's failure to apply the Nehmer rules to CLL claims. NVLSP urges those affected by the VA's position (Vietnam veterans and survivors of deceased Vietnam veterans—and those who represent them—who applied for benefits due to CLL before October 16, 2003, but who received an October 16, 2003, effective date) to contact NVLSP by calling (202) 265-8305, extension #119.

Nehmer is one of NVLSP's class action lawsuits against the VA. Nehmer invalidated VA's denials of all claims based on diseases related to Agent Orange exposure if such denials were made on or after September 25, 1985. Nehmer provided that these claims be readjudicated. See Nehmer v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, No. CV-86-6160 at ¶¶ 3 and 5 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 1991) (Final Stipulation and Order). Many veterans and surviving family members have received or are entitled to retroactive benefits due to Nehmer.

According to VA, Nehmer applies only to awards based on conditions established as presumptive prior to the Agent Orange Act's original sunset date of September 30, 2002. However, in 2002, the Congress extended the Agent Orange Act of 1991 and required the National Academy of Sciences to continue to analyze scientific studies on the health effects of exposure to herbicides used in Vietnam, and to issue additional reports every two years until the year 2014." from NVLSP

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Matrev earned a badge
      First Post
    • Patrol Agent earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Patrol Agent earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Patrol Agent earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Grey Goose went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Our picks

    • From CCK-Law.com

      VA Disability Payment Schedule for 2025

      VA Disability Rates 2025
      • 2 replies
    • 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.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 1 review
    • 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.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      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”
      • 0 reviews
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use