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

Agent Orange & Prostate Cancer - How is back pay calculated?

Rate this question


Question

Posted

Hi all,

I have two questions:

A) I was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer in early February 2016, filed a claim with the VA on February 16, 2016 and received the VA's 5/17/2016 notice of Original Award of 100% disability rating due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam (1968-1969). I've done quite a bit of research (including here on hadit.com) trying to understand the VA's back pay provisions to make sure I'm being properly compensated but most of what I've found seems to be a lot more complicated than what I think is my pretty simple issue. The VA's letter itself is a little confusing to me - excerpts follow:

 

  • "Effective Date: 2/16/2016"

  • "Payment Start Date: 3/1/2016"

  • "Generally, payments begin the first day of the month following the effective date. When applicable, a retroactive payment, minus any withholdings, will be issued. Thereafter, payment will be made at the beginning of each month for the prior month. For example, benefits due for May are paid on or about June 1." 

 

I received payment for 2 months retroactive around 5/17/2016 and payment on June 1 (for May 2016). But it seems to me that if my "Payment Start Date" was 3/1/2016 (presumably for February), I should have had 3 months of retroactive pay (not 2), for 3/1, 4/1 & 5/1 before normal monthly payments began on June 1.  Am I correct here or am I misunderstanding something?

B) Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I came across the following information from the " §3.114  Change of law or Department of Veterans Affairs issue", (a) Effective date of award that provides: " (3) If a claim is reviewed at the request of the claimant more than 1 year after the effective date of the law or VA issue, benefits may be authorized for a period of 1 year prior to the date of receipt of such request.  (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1805, 1815, 1821, 1832, 5110(g))" (this info was found at http://www.benefits.va.gov/WARMS/docs/regs/38cfr/bookb/part3/s3_114.doc which I was referred to from this link: http://www.veteranprograms.com/id1757.html ("Section 4. Other Claims").  Since I filed the claim more than a year after the effective date that the law recognizes prostate cancer as presumptive under the VA's Disability rules, should my retroactive pay be for 1 year prior to the 2/16/2016 date of my claim?

Thanks for any help anyone can provide - you all are providing a great service!

Jeff Smith

  • Answers 20
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
Posted

When I click on the M21 link it has the quote but seems to only apply to Vets with AO from Korea and also children of Vietnam Vets ( with -I assume- Spinal Bifida). I didnt copy the whole thing. Hopefully others will chime in on this.I could find any BVA decision that referred to this either.

§3.114  Change of law or Department of Veterans Affairs issue.

 

            "(a) Effective date of award. Where pension, compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or a monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 for an individual who is a child of a Vietnam veteran or child of a veteran with covered service in Korea is awarded or increased pursuant to a liberalizing law, or a liberalizing VA issue approved by the Secretary or by the Secretary’s direction, the effective date of such award or increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the act or administrative issue. Where pension, compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or a monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 for an individual who is a child of a Vietnam veteran or child of a veteran with covered service in Korea is awarded or increased pursuant to a liberalizing law or VA issue which became effective on or after the date of its enactment or issuance, in order for a claimant to be eligible for a retroactive payment under the provisions of this paragraph the evidence must show that the claimant met all eligibility criteria for the liberalized benefit on the effective date of the liberalizing law or VA issue and that such eligibility existed continuously from that date to the date of claim or administrative determination of entitlement. The provisions of this paragraph are applicable to original and reopened claims as well as claims for increase.

 

                        (1) If a claim is reviewed on the initiative of VA within 1 year from the effective date of the law or VA issue, or at the request of a claimant received within 1 year from that date, benefits may be authorized from the effective date of the law or VA issue.

 

                        (2) If a claim is reviewed on the initiative of VA more than 1 year after the effective date of the law or VA issue, benefits may be authorized for a period of 1 year prior to the date of administrative determination of entitlement.

 

                        (3) If a claim is reviewed at the request of the claimant more than 1 year after the effective date of the law or VA issue, benefits may be authorized for a period of 1 year prior to the date of receipt of such request.  (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1805, 1815, 1821, 1832, 5110(g))

 

            (b) Discontinuance of benefits. Where the reduction or discontinuance of an award is in order because of a change in law or a Department of Veterans Affairs issue, or because of a change in interpretation of a law or Department of Veterans Affairs issue, the payee will be notified at his or her latest address of record of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefor, and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence. If additional evidence is not received within that period, the award will

 

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.

  • 0
Posted
45 minutes ago, Berta said:

M21 link ?

Thanks for posting,  Berta. Not sure what that M21 link refers to ... can you clarify?

My bad for quoting the wrong law.   Searching Google for:  VA "Disability Compensation" "Effective date of award" "Agent Orange" "prostate cancer" I find the 1st link refers to VA case law at:  http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/files5/0836040.txt which provides:

"As the veteran cannot be deemed a Nehmer class member, the 
effective date of the award shall be determined in accordance 
with 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.114 and 3.400.  38 C.F.R. § 3.816(c)(4)."

Searching Google for "38 C.F.R. §§ 3.114" which (from above) appears to be the correct law, the 3rd link is:

http://helpdesk.vetsfirst.org/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=1967 which provides the same language as that applicable to the " Vets with AO from Korea and also children of Vietnam Vets" quoted above, to wit:

"Additionally, VA regulation § 3.114(a) provides:

 

(a) Effective date of award. Where pension, compensation, [or DIC], ... is awarded or increased pursuant to a liberalizing law, or a liberalizing VA issue approved by the Secretary or by the Secretary's direction, the effective date of such award or increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the act or administrative issue. Where pension, compensation, [or DIC], ... is awarded or increased pursuant to a liberalizing law or VA issue which became effective on or after the date of its enactment or issuance, in order for a claimant to be eligible for retroactive payment under the provisions of this paragraph the evidence must show that the claimant met all eligibility criteria for the liberalized benefit on the effective date of the liberalizing law or VA issue and that such eligibility existed continuously from that date to the date of claim or administrative determination of entitlement.

 

(1)   If a claim is reviewed on the initiative of VA within 1 year from the effective date of the law or VA issue, or at the request of a claimant received within 1 year from that date, benefits may be authorized from the effective date of the law or VA issue.

 

(2)   If a claim is reviewed on the initiative of VA more than 1 year after the effective date of the law or VA issue, benefits may be authorized for a period of 1 year prior to the date of administrative determination of entitlement.

 

(3)   If a claim is reviewed at the request of the claimant more than 1 year after the effective date of the law or VA issue, benefits may be authorized for a period of 1 year prior to the date of receipt of such request."

So, again, I may be misunderstanding here, but I still have the same two questions as in my initial post (although hopefully better referenced in this latter post).  Again, I appreciate any help here.

 

  • 0
Posted (edited)

"So, again, I may be misunderstanding here, but I still have the same two questions as in my initial post (although hopefully better referenced in this latter post).  Again, I appreciate any help here. "

The info I posted is from the M 21 link you posted.

Did you file a formal AO prostate Cancer claim within the year the regulation became law?"

If so, and it was denied, then the CUE would have to based on that denial.

"based on claims received within one year of the

regulatory change The Board further notes that VA liberalized its regulations 
to add prostate cancer to the list of presumptive diseases 
associated with herbicide exposure effective November 7, 
1996.  See 61 Fed. Reg. 57,586 (November 7, 1996).  Thus, 
this is not a claim where an earlier effective date of award 
can be premised on the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a), 
which provides for an earlier effective date in certain 
circumstances based on claims received within one year of the 
regulatory change.  See Liesegang v. Sec'y of Veterans 
Affairs, 312 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2002)."

Others can clarify this more. this probably arose from a CAVC or COVA case.

 

 

Edited by Berta

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.

  • 0
Posted

Hi Berta,

 

To your question: " Did you file a formal AO prostate Cancer claim within the year the regulation became law?" ... the answer is no.  As indicated in my initial post:  " I was diagnosed with Prostate Cancer in early February 2016, filed a claim with the VA on February 16, 2016 " (well after the effective November 7, 1996 date of the liberalizing law). So, I don't think the other info you quoted applies to me ...

So, I'm still hoping to find answers to the 2 questions posed in my initial post (but, again, hopefully better referenced in my 2nd post) ...

.

  • 0
Posted

I was focusing on this statement:

" Since I filed the claim more than a year after the effective date that the law recognizes prostate cancer as presumptive under the VA's Disability rules, should my retroactive pay be for 1 year prior to the 2/16/2016 date of my claim?"

The answer is no.

You sure might be correct on the missing month of retro but others will chime in on that..

They do make many errors.

 

 

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.

  • 0
Posted

Hi Berta,

  1. With reference to your conclusion: "The answer is no", can you advise why I don't qualify?
  2. Respecting: "You sure might be correct on the missing month of retro but others will chime in on that" ... is there a way to bring this to the attention of others (I know sometimes people don't join an ongoing conversation if they see one of their Experts is already involved in the conversation ...) ?

Thanks,

 

Jeff

 

.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

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

    • AFguy1999 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Grey Goose earned a badge
      First Post
    • Matrev earned a badge
      First Post
    • Patrol Agent earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Patrol Agent earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • 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