Give a financial gift to help with the upkeep of HadIt.com. HadIt.com is NOT a non profit. Gifts are not tax deductible, they are just gifts.
Donation BoxPlease donate to support the community.
We appreciate all donations!
Several discussions about ITFs under the AMA process have cropped up in other forums. Today in talking about one it dawned on me I could find out a few things by simply starting to file under the AMA process.
In short what I found is that ITF's do indeed exist under the AMA process for New Claims. The process also recognizes automatically if you have an existing ITF from before Feb 19, 2019.
Attached are 5 screen caps on the process. Caps 1 and 5 related to filing a New Claim. The other 3 show what your options are depending on the date of the decision you are appealing.
Read the fine print on Cap 5 concerning previous ITF's.
Will this change? who knows, but as of now the application process under AMA for a New Claim indicates that ITF's are alive and breathing on their own.
Another question about the AMA process.
In 2018 I filed for SMC for ED. I was awarded 0% but SMC allowed. yippee.
At that time the Award letter said I had a potential claim for Voiding Dysfunction if I choose to file for it.
Since my other claims were tied up on the VA hamster wheel, I filed an Intent to File.
AS I understand it since Feb 19 that Intent to File is gone? and my earlier date is done, meaning when I file for the Voiding Dysfunction my file date will be the earliest possible under the new AMA process?
Is there a way around this to get an EED back to 2018?
In anyone's experience in preceding a formal claim submission with an Intent To File notification, does CFR 20.305 (Computation of Time Limit for Filing) rule apply to the Intent To File process timeframe requirements for completed claim award effective date?
My scenario: On 8/06/2015 (Thursday) my Intent To File notification was received/logged online by VA via eBenefits. The next month my mother was hospitalised by coma and died at end of month. For several months afterwards, I did nothing with the claim. During July 2016 I completed the claim in eBenefits but could not submit for system errors over 2+ weeks of attempts (as Support Desk advised they only assisted with access to eBenefits and not any problems using it).
1-2 days before Intent To File expiry, I recreated the claim via paper form and was forced to mail it out via USPS the morning of Intent To File expiry. As a result of inquiring with VA personnel at both the regional hospital and attached CBOC, as well as via 800-827-1000, and being informed that VA would adhere to postmark date for preserving Intent To File effective date, I paid an extra fee to guarantee USPS postmark the submittal that morning (Saturday 8/06/2016) and cause issue of postmark verification document. The completed claim form was received by VA on 8/09/2016.
After retention of legal representative, VA awarded me benefits for a portion of my claim's conditions (the remainder of the claim being still in Appeal) with effective date of 8/09/2016, the day they received my mailed claim submittal.
If Intent To File timeframe requirement is exempt from Rule 305, then, since my mailed claim submittal wasn't received until 3 days past Intent To File expiration, my effective date is correct as presented.
If Rule 305's Time Limit Computation directives DO apply to the Intent To File process, then my effective date should be nearly a full year earlier than was presented, to encompass the Intent To File's preserved receipt/initiated date of 8/06/2015.
My lawyer, upon a cursory review of the information I just related above, is of the INITIAL opinion that the VA's presentation of effective date is NOT challengable due to the Intent To File process being exempt from Rule 305. This is based partly on the word choice* that frames the Intent To File process description (in at least one place, though not consistently in what documentation** of the process that I have been able to reference).
Please ask away if more information is felt necessary, and I will further furnish what I can.
* "received within 1 year" ... rather than "filed" or "submitted" (as with Rule 305 employing " filed within a specified period of time")
Hey Guys - I need to know if it is possible to file an 'Intent to File' and then submit multiple claims?
When I first started to file a few years back I was told just a letter stating that you would be filing for multiple claims for service connected disabilities, connected to conditions to, but not limited to, disabilities,related to Agent Orange, back, injuries, scars, and more, would suffice for a year while you prepared your claim.
The was I read the info sheet on the new 'Intent to File' (21-0966), it looks like it is good for only your 'next' claim - and going by the VA example, it looks like you have to then file a claim before you can submit another 'Intent to File'.
This really doesn't make sense, and I would think there was a way to save the date for multiple claims - but in reading the forum it does not appear so, or at least I haven't looked in the right place yet.
So if possible, how do we file an 'Intent to File' for multiple claims?
My heart goes out to all of my fellow survivors of MST ...
For me, I have found I can no longer suppress and manage the daily physical and emotional affects of the sexual assault that took place on December 25, 1985 while serving on active duty. In effort to find some help, relief and hopefully someday healing I am starting the uphill journey to deal with this and try to share some of the highlights of my battle. I will be the first to admit I have no idea what I am doing and can only hope that God the father.... will guide my feet day by day.
First step locating documentation of the event. A few weeks ago I was able to locate the police dept. and requested a copy of the report. I received a copy of the 15 page report this past week and it makes me emotionally and physically sick just to look at the envelope it's in.
I also tried to locate medical records over the years from prior mental health therapists and physicians that would have documented my history as it related to these events, but the practices were closed or my records were no longer available due to time.
April I called the VA to inquire about mental health services for MST and hesitated to start the process because the MST would not be marked in my record for all my providers to see. This was a big hurdle mentally as I have always hid this event at all costs from my providers. I am sure this did not help my physicians treat me and fully understand my ongoing medical problems especially those in which are usually brought on by some big life event which I always adamantly denied when asked.
May 2nd 2017, I submitted a "intent to file".
May 4th 2017, I went to a VSO rep?? to asked questions about the process to file a claim related to MST. The rep was belittling, insulting, hurtful, rude and I walked out of that office with no more information and the psychological affects were pretty devastating. At the encouragement from my daughter to go straight to the patient advocate office and file a complaint....I did just that. I found myself have a total mental breakdown just trying to give the details of what just went down and was thankfully met with support and many reassurances that I would have a team of people helping moving forward and that person would be brought in...dealt with and re-trained. I will spare you all the details.
My next step is hearing from the mental health dept. to set up an appt. to do some type of baseline evaluation of my symptoms etc. as it related to MST... I guess to get an official diagnosis on record and to get me the specific therapy I need started. I will likely opt for tele-therapy once I have a few sessions onsite at the VA.
That's it for now
Peggy toll free 1000 last week, told me that, my claim or case BVA Granted is at the RO waiting on someone to sign off ,She said your in step 5 going into step 6 . That's good, right.?Peggy toll free 1000 last week, told me that, my claim or case BVA Granted is at the RO waiting on someone to sign off ,She said your in step 5 going into step 6 . That's good, right.?
Vync posted an answer to a question,I took a look at your documents and am trying to interpret what happened. A summary of what happened would have helped, but I hope I am interpreting your intentions correctly:
2003 asthma denied because they said you didn't have 'chronic' asthma diagnosis
2018 Asthma/COPD granted 30% effective Feb 2015 based on FEV-1 of 60% and inhalational anti-inflamatory medication.
"...granted SC for your asthma with COPD w/dypsnea because your STRs show you were diagnosed with asthma during your military service in 1995.
First, check the date of your 2018 award letter. If it is WITHIN one year, file a notice of disagreement about the effective date.
If it is AFTER one year, that means your claim has became final. If you would like to try to get an earlier effective date, then CUE or new and material evidence are possible avenues.
I assume your 2003 denial was due to not finding "chronic" or continued symptoms noted per 38 CFR 3.303(b). In 2013, the Federal Circuit court (Walker v. Shinseki) changed they way they use the term "chronic" and requires the VA to use 3.303(a) for anything not listed under 3.307 and 3.309. You probably had a nexus and benefit of the doubt on your side when you won SC.
It might be possible for you to CUE the effective date back to 2003 or earlier. You'll need to familiarize yourself with the restrictions of CUE. It has to be based on the evidence in the record and laws in effect at the time the decision was made. Avoid trying to argue on how they weighed a decision, but instead focus on the evidence/laws to prove they were not followed or the evidence was never considered. It's an uphill fight. I would start by recommending you look carefully at your service treatment records and locate every instance where you reported breathing issues, asthma diagnosis, or respiratory treatment (albuterol, steroids, etc...). CUE is not easy and it helps to do your homework before you file.
Another option would be to file for an increased rating, but to do that you would need to meet the criteria for 60%. If you don't meet criteria for a 60% rating, just ensure you still meet the criteria for 30% (using daily inhaled steroid inhalers is adequate) because they are likely to deny your request for increase. You could attempt to request an earlier effective date that way.
Does this help?
Buck52 posted an answer to a question,Tinnitus comes in two forms: subjective and objective. In subjective tinnitus, only the sufferer will hear the ringing in their own ears. In objective tinnitus, the sound can be heard by a doctor who is examining the ear canals. Objective tinnitus is extremely rare, while subjective tinnitus is by far the most common form of the disorder.
The sounds of tinnitus may vary with the person experiencing it. Some will hear a ringing, while others will hear a buzzing. At times people may hear a chirping or whistling sound. These sounds may be constant or intermittent. They may also vary in volume and are generally more obtrusive when the sufferer is in a quiet environment. Many tinnitus sufferers find their symptoms are at their worst when they’re trying to fall asleep.
Picked By66 bricks,
JKWilliamsSr posted a question in VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Research Forum,A couple months back before I received my decision I started preparing for the appeal I knew I would be filing. That is how little faith I had in the VA caring about we the veteran.
One of the things I did is I went through the entire M21-1 and documented every CAVC precedent case that the VA cited. I did this because I wanted to see what the rater was seeing. I could not understand for the life of me why so many obviously bad decisions were being handed down. I think the bottom line is that the wrong type of people are hired as raters. I think raters should have some kind of legal background. They do not need to be lawyers but I think paralegals would be a good idea.
There have been more than 3500 precedent setting decisions from the CAVC since 1989. Now we need to concede that all of them are not favorable to the veteran but I have learned that in a lot of cases even though the veteran lost a case it some rules were established that assisted other veterans.
The document I created has about 200 or so decisions cited in the M21-1. Considering the fact that there are more than 3500 precedent cases out there I think it is safe to assume the VA purposely left out decisions that would make it almost impossible to deny veteran claims. Case in point. I know of 14 precedent setting decisions that state the VA cannot ignore or give no weight to outside doctors without providing valid medical reasons as to why. Most of these decision are not cited by the M21.
It is important that we do our due diligence to make sure we do not get screwed. I think the M21-1 is incomplete because there is too much information we veterans are finding on our own to get the benefits we deserve
M21-1 Precedent setting decisions .docx