Vike17 - Question?

[Philip Rogers]

What's your take on the following statements taken from a BVA remand to the RO on a SC Housebound claim:

"Recently the Court has clarified that housebound benefits are payable where the pertinent disabilities cause the veteran to be substantially confined to the home or its immediate premises, and that this requirement is met when the veteran is unable to leave the home to earn a living." Hartness v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 216 (2006)

Additionally, in the "case being Remanded for the following action" section it states: "The examiner should also opine as to whether the veteran is substantially confined to his dwelling or the immediate premises as a direct result of his service connected disabiities, that is, do these disabilities cause him to be unable to leave the house in order to earn a living."

This was addressed the other day with regard to NSC pension but the BVA is using this in a SC claim. Anyone else who wants please respond also.

Thanks,

pr

Edited December 5, 2006 by Philip Rogers

[Pete53]

To good to be true but you weren't asking me.

[betrayed]

that sounds to good to be true, but if it is true there is a new can of worms to open

[Philip Rogers]

My feelings, exactly, which is why I feel vets should apply now. I personally feel that the VA will eventually try to cease paying vets who are TDIU, at age 65, by saying they would be retired at that age and therefore not in the employment force anyway but that's another discussion. jmo

pr

that sounds to good to be true, but if it is true there is a new can of worms to open

[Philip Rogers]

Philip,

Not too long ago I asked you to cite the case that you are refering to, you said then you couldn't find it.

Even thou you said the case at issued cited Hartness v. Nicholson which is a case that concerned a NSC Pension for a veteran over 65.

Just because another case cited Hartness v. Nicholson and was remanded for an opinion, does not necessarly mean that the second case is addressing the same problem or issues.

In order to form a valid opinion, or understanding it is really necessary to read the case, that has cited Hartness v. Nicholson and not just a selected line from that case.

I think I said it was new. I just checked the BVA site and hasn't been posted yet. I'm tired of arguing with you. I think the BVA knows what they're looking for. Forget I brought it up. I'll apply and if I win or lose I 'll let everyone know. You do what you want.

pr

[Philip Rogers]

Philp,

I am sorry you feel I am arguing with you. I don't see were there is any argument. You asked for opinions concerning a document that you cannot even cite, then you get upset because I asked you to provide a copy of the document or at least cite the title of the document.

It is apparent You have already formed an opinion, based on this mystery document, that being the case, why do you keep asking for opinions. All I said is that no one can make an valid opinion unless they can read this mystery document,if that is arguing so be it. However you can't really expect anyone to voice a valid opinion with out being able to read this document, do you?

No Rick, this is what I requested: What's your take on the following "statements" taken from a BVA remand to the RO on a SC Housebound claim:

"Recently the Court has clarified that housebound benefits are payable where the pertinent disabilities cause the veteran to be substantially confined to the home or its immediate premises, and that this requirement is met when the veteran is unable to leave the home to earn a living." Hartness v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 216 (2006)

Additionally, in the "case being Remanded for the following action" section it states: "The examiner should also opine as to whether the veteran is substantially confined to his dwelling or the immediate premises as a direct result of his service connected disabiities, that is, do these disabilities cause him to be unable to leave the house in order to earn a living."

This was addressed the other day with regard to NSC pension but the BVA is using this in a SC claim. Anyone else who wants please respond also.

As for the case, I can't post what isn't on-line yet and I damn sure am not going to type the whole thing out just to make "you" happy. Wishing you well!

pr

Edited December 6, 2006 by Philip Rogers

[john999]

Philp

I am IU at 80%. Tell me exactly how I would go about filing for housebound. My one question is will the application for HB trigger a complete review of my IU award and my P&T status. That I don't want! I am willing to take you at your word that there is a possibility of us IU people getting HB. I don't want to wake up the monster and have it bite me, however. You can communicate with me via email if you don't want to talk on Hadit. I could use a few hundred more bucks a month. I must tell you that I do go out to shop and I go to doctors appointments and so on. I don't sit in the house all the time. I bet most of us IU and 100% people do not fit the old HB criteria.