tinnitus Bet We Have Lots Of Pending Claims Out There !

[carlie]

This claim only deals with Tinnitus as a pending claim -- but I bet there are thousands and thousands of pending claims out there that are different medical issues than Tinnitus.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp02/files02/0206519.txt

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The RO has obtained all evidence necessary for an

equitable disposition of the veteran's claim.

2. On January 18, 1961, the veteran filed a claim for

compensation for poor hearing in his left ear and a

constant ringing. The veteran was honorably discharged on

January 19, 1961.

3. In May 1961, the RO denied the veteran's claim of

entitlement to service connection for hearing loss, but

did not address the issue of service connection for

tinnitus. In December 1999, the veteran refiled for

service connection for tinnitus. In March 2000, the RO

granted service connection for tinnitus and assigned a 10

percent evaluation, effective December 3, 1999.

4. The veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection

for tinnitus has been pending since January 1961 and the

effective date for the grant of service connection should

coincide with the January 1961 application for benefits.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for an effective date of January 20, 1961 for

service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 5110 (West 1991 & Supp. 2001); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.160, 3.400

(2001).

Hope this helps a vet !

jmho,

carlie

[Philip Rogers]

This claim only deals with Tinnitus as a pending claim -- but I bet there are thousands and thousands of pending claims out there that are different medical issues than Tinnitus.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp02/files02/0206519.txt

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The RO has obtained all evidence necessary for an

equitable disposition of the veteran's claim.

2. On January 18, 1961, the veteran filed a claim for

compensation for poor hearing in his left ear and a

constant ringing. The veteran was honorably discharged on

January 19, 1961.

3. In May 1961, the RO denied the veteran's claim of

entitlement to service connection for hearing loss, but

did not address the issue of service connection for

tinnitus. In December 1999, the veteran refiled for

service connection for tinnitus. In March 2000, the RO

granted service connection for tinnitus and assigned a 10

percent evaluation, effective December 3, 1999.

4. The veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection

for tinnitus has been pending since January 1961 and the

effective date for the grant of service connection should

coincide with the January 1961 application for benefits.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for an effective date of January 20, 1961 for

service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C.A.

§ 5110 (West 1991 & Supp. 2001); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.160, 3.400

(2001).

Hope this helps a vet !

jmho,

carlie

I'd bet there are thousands of unadjudicated "pending" claims that never get adjudicated because vets don't know. jmo

pr

Edited December 10, 2006 by Philip Rogers

[carlie]

Phillip,

Your wording is much more correct than mine. Thanks.

carlie

[Berta]

"I'd bet there are thousands of unadjudicated "pending" claims that never get adjudicated because vets don't know. jmo"

I sure agree-

If the claim was filed and never decided it is still an open claim.

Even if a claim originally had lets say three issues- and the veteran gets an award on one of them-

unless the VA deferred decision on the other two -they still remain open.

In many cases an award can seem to make other undecided claims moot-

BUT the reality is say a vet claimed PTSD and also heart disease due to service.

Say the vet gets TDIU for the PTSD in 2005 and the heart claim is never decided.The vet feels happy with the TDIU and her vet rep says dont bother to pursue the heart claim.

Say the vet has evidence in her SMRs of early signs of heart disease and she has a heart attack in 2006.She files a new claim for the CAD-

If the CAD is rated at 60 % disabling and found service connected- the vet is eligible for SMC.

However the vet might have lost her EED on the older heart claim that was not decided and the VA should be informed of that initial claim.

Does this make any sense? I might sure be wrong----------

any thoughts?

[carlie]

"Say the vet gets TDIU for the PTSD in 2005 and the heart claim is never decided.The vet feels happy with the TDIU and her vet rep says dont bother to pursue the heart claim."

So, in my opinion this part of the veterans claim was never adjudicated and remains pending.

jmho,

carlie

[Guest jangrin]

"Say the vet gets TDIU for the PTSD in 2005 and the heart claim is never decided.The vet feels happy with the TDIU and her vet rep says dont bother to pursue the heart claim."

So, in my opinion this part of the veterans claim was never adjudicated and remains pending.

jmho,

carlie

Carlie,

I totally agree with you. If the VA doesn't list the "veterans illness, ailment" in their decision, than it remains a pending claim. This is really big deal.

The VA will try to block this if there are suddenly a large amount of Veterans seeking SC because of this. This is due solely because of the way the VA operates. It is their fault because, they the VA, are the ones who do not operate within time limitations. There are no penalties for not deciding claims within a certain time frame. Now it could come back and bite them in the AZZ. I hope so.

Jangrin

Edited December 11, 2006 by jangrin

[Philip Rogers]

"Say the vet gets TDIU for the PTSD in 2005 and the heart claim is never decided.The vet feels happy with the TDIU and her vet rep says dont bother to pursue the heart claim."

So, in my opinion this part of the veterans claim was never adjudicated and remains pending.

jmho,

carlie

Carla, et al, I think this Deshotel decision is going to impact all these "pending" claims. My concern is "due process." A claimant has a right to receive a written decision, with the required "reasons and bases" for that decision and notice of their rights of appeal. This failure will cause many vets to lose money and save the VA much. I hope NVLSP pursues this issue. jmo

pr