Jump to content


  • veteranscrisisline-badge-chat-1.gif

  • Advertisemnt

  • Trouble Remembering? This helped me.

    I have memory problems and as some of you may know I highly recommend Evernote and have for years. Though I've found that writing helps me remember more. I ran across Tom's videos on youtube, I'm a bit geeky and I also use an IPad so if you take notes on your IPad or you are thinking of going paperless check it out. I'm really happy with it, I use it with a program called Noteshelf 2.

    Click here to purchase your digital journal. HadIt.com receives a commission on each purchase.

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims

    questions-001@3x.png

    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
     
  • Ads

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • Advertisemnt

  • VA Watchdog

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
mytime34

VA Found/Approved a CUE, but Effective Date is Wrong

Question

Hello All,

Break down of my ratings over the years

2000 - 10% Degenerative Miniscus Bilateral & 10% Tinitus
2007 - Increase for knees from 10% to 20% due to VA mistake of ratings both knees together
2010 - 0% lower back, as a secondary to my knee problems
2011 - 20% lower back increase, due to evidence of range of motion and herniated discs, retroactive to 2010 (Once again VA did not review all the evidence)
(40% rated)
2016 - 20% left knee, 20% right knee, 10% left leg sciatica, 10% right leg sciatica
I am now 70% rated, still waiting for the SOC to be released (but there are still 6 claims that have not been completed)

The letter from the VA states Clear and Unmistakable errors is found in the evaluation of the Degen Arthritis of the Left & Right knee, due to locking, pain and effusion.
The retroactive increase of 20% is established on May 1 2013 (Left Knee) and Jun 11, 2013 (Right knee)
This is where the first issue is, the right knees date is incorrect as they used the last time I filed for a knee increase claim (denied of course), but the dates are still wrong. The Jun 11, 2013 is when I had surgery on my knee and was 100% rated during that month.
The locking, pain and effusion have been stated during every C&P exam and is in every SOC dating back to 2000.
I have filed a NOD for Effective Date and supplied all medical reports, VA visits, C&P exams back to 2000 and have asked for the Effective date to be Feb 20, 2000.

If the VA finds a CUE on their own, does that help my case in the Effective Date NOD?
Is there a cutoff on how far back the VA can retroactive a disability?


Finally received the Final Decision and case is now closed.

20% Degenerative Disc Disease of the Lumbar Spine 5242
20% Deg Arthritus of the Right Knee 5010-5258
20% Deg Arthritus of the Left Knee 5010-5258
20% Deg tears, posterior horn of the medial menisci, bilateral knees 5257-5010
10% Radiclopathy (Sciatica) Right extremity 8520
10% Radiclopathy (Sciatica) Left extremity 8520
10% Tinnitus 6260
0% Residual scar, left knee surgival debrigement 7805

70% rated

I just filed my NOD for an earlier effective date, due to the CUE (Clear and Unmistakable Error) that the VA found during my claim review. CUE was found due to "locking, pain and effusion of the L/R knee)
Because of the CUE they set the effective dates of Feb 2013 & May 2013 (Right and Left knee), but the RO should have reviewed all of my filings and original approval of 1/25/1999.
Each one of the reviews and documented notes states Locking, popping, swelling, instability and pain.
I also called the VA today to see what the next steps were and the lady told me to file the NOD and she was sending a request for review of the CUE effective dates.

Also the VA did not evaluate my Bilateral Hip Condition, which was part of the claim (that is now closed).

Has anyone else had the VA find a CUE? Was it in your favor or theirs? Did you get an earlier effective date?

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Not on a cue.It goes back to the date the claim was filed.

 

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

 I agree with John And

VCAA are not applicable where CUE is 
claimed

your basicly on your own filing CUE

However the board can remand back to RO  & RO issues a SSOC...Usually a Denial of EED & Then they give Reasons & Bases Why

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Here is the breakdown of my ratings over the years.

The retroactive date is not based upon the claim I filed on 4/28/2016, they went back to my June 11, 2013 claim (which was closed and no appeal filed)

 

10% Deg arthritis Bilateral   (Records and reports show locking, popping, swelling)1/25/1999 - 2/20/2000

(20%)10% Deg arth Bilateral & 10% Tinnitus  (2nd time filing for knee issue and increase with records and reports showing locking & swelling) 2/20/2000 - 2/7/2002

(30%) 10% Deg arth Left knee & 10% Deg Arth right knee (Error found by VA that my knees should have been rated separately)(reports and records still show locking, swelling, pain), 10% Tinnitus 2/27/2000 - 6/29/2011

(40%) 10% Deg Arth Left knee, 10% Deg Arth right knee, 10% Tinnitus & 10% Lower back Deg Arth (increase request for knees due to locking, pain and swelling, denied) 6/29/2011 - 4/28/2016

(70%) 20% Deg Arth Left Knee (CUE found due to locking, pain, swelling), 20% Deg Arth Right knee (CUE found due to locking, pain, swelling), 20% Degenerative Tears, posterior horn medial menisci Bilat knees, 20% Degen Disc diseas lumbar spine, 10% Radiculopathy (Sciatica Nerve) left extremity, 10% Radiculopathy (Sciatica Nerve) right extremity, 10% Tinnitus, 0% Residual Scar, left knee surgery.  4/28/2016 - Present
(CUE for the left & right knee was effective back to Feb 2016 (right knee) & May 2016 (Left knee) as this was the last time I filed for a review of my knees and an increase it was denied.

Every C&P exam that I have had for my bilat knees (1999,2000, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2016) I have stated that I have locking, pain, swelling, instability, weakness and popping). This is why I am stating that the CUE should go back to the original approval date of 1/25/1999.

I have only filed 2 appeals over the last 20yrs as I was tired of the processes, but they were in the beginning of my first claims.
The CUE was not the result of an appeal or anything like that, it was just found out of the blue by the VA.
Here is the exact wording of the CUE (Left and right knee were given the same answer)

(Left knee)
An evaluation of 20% is granted whenever the semilunar cartilage is dislocated with frequent episodes of "locking, " pain and effusion into the joint.

Clear and unmistakable errors are errors that are undebatable, so that it can be said that reasonable minds could only conclude that the previous decision was fatally flawed at the time it was made. A determination that there was a clear and inmistakable error must be based on the record  and the law that existed at the time of the prior decision. Once a determination is made that there was a clear and unmistakable error in a prior decision that would change the outcome, then the decision must be revisied to conform to what the decision should have been. In this case the retroactive incrase for degenerative arthritis of the left knee S/P medical meniscus debrigement, (previously evaluated as posterior horn of the medial menisci and DC 5010-5260) is granted as the previous evaluation decision was a clear and unmistakable error.

A clear and unmistakable error is found in the evaluation of the degenerative arthritis of the left knee s/p medical menisci debridement and a retroactive increased evaluation to 20% disabling is established from May 1, 2013. A review of your claim  and VA examination dated June 11, 2013, showed that your right knee should have been evaluated as a meniscal tear with frequent episodes of locking, pain and effusion into the joint. There was no limitation of range of motion, nor objective evidence of painful movement of the knee.

(Right Knee)
An evaluation of 20% is granted whenever the semilunar cartilage is dislocated with frequent episodes of "locking, " pain and effusion into the joint.

Clear and unmistakable errors are errors that are undebatable, so that it can be said that reasonable minds could only conclude that the previous decision was fatally flawed at the time it was made. A determination that there was a clear and inmistakable error must be based on the record  and the law that existed at the time of the prior decision. Once a determination is made that there was a clear and unmistakable error in a prior decision that would change the outcome, then the decision must be revisied to conform to what the decision should have been. In this case the retroactive increase for degenerative arthritis of the left knee S/P medical meniscus debrigement, (previously evaluated as posterior horn of the medial menisci and DC 5010-5260) is granted as the previous evaluation decision was a clear and unmistakable error.

A clear and unmistakable error is found in the evaluation of the degenerative arthritis of the right knee claimed as bursitis, tendonitis and arthritis and a retroactive increased evaluation to 20% disabling is established from Feb 6, 2013. A clear and unmistakable error (CUE) is an error that is undebatable so that reasonable minds could not differ. A determination of the CUE must be based on the record and the law that existed at the time of the prior decision. Such error must have been prejudicial to the claimant. Once the determination is made that there was a CUE in a prior decision that would change the outcome of that decision that decision must be corrected so as if the former error had not been made. A review of your claim  and VA examination dated June 11, 2013, showed that your left knee should have been evaluated as a meniscal tear with frequent episodes of locking, pain and effusion into the joint. There was no limitation of range of motion, nor objective evidence of painful movement of the knee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Yes, Yes, and Yes to your 3 CUE questions, which I think I put in our CUE forum., except the VA didnt find them, I did and they concurred.

"Has anyone else had the VA find a CUE? Was it in your favor or theirs? Did you get an earlier effective date?" 
 

 

but the RO should have reviewed all of my filings and original approval of 1/25/1999. "

Was the CUE filed specifically on that 1999 decision too?

Edited by Berta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I never filed a CUE, I had no idea what a CUE was until Sept 13, 2016

The VA found the CUE during their review of my 4/28/16 claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Vync
      How long does a higher level review/CUE take? I initially called the 1-800 number and they said supplemental reviews are supposed to take less than 125 days, but they were not certain about higher level reviews. The agent speculated they could take a year or longer.
      This post was changed to track my claim as it made it's way through the VA system. This may help other veterans understand some of the inner workings of what goes on behind the scenes.
      Why am I calling this HLR/CUE and not just CUE or HLR?
      At the time the claims were submitted, other members have indicated filing their CUE claims as regular letters. With the overhaul to the VA claims and appeals process in early 2019, they have became sticklers for filing on certain forms. Unfortunately, there is no mandatory form for a CUE claim. With HLR and CUE being mostly similar, aside from the restrictions of CUE, I wanted to cover my bases and not cause any delays with them having to come back and ask me to use a specific form.
       
      HLR/CUE timeline
      2019-09-20 Mailed to VA certified mail w/return receipt
      2019-09-23 Claim received
      2019-10-08 Not yet posted to va.gov. Called 1-800-827-1000. ETA March 2020.
      2019-10-17 Moved you evidence gathering, review, and decision as of 2019-10-15. ETA November 4, 2019
      2019-10-22 Moved to initial review as of 2019-10-03. ETA March 30, 2020
      2019-10-24 Requested records
      2019-10-29 va.gov status unchanged. Development letter sent. Called 1-800-827-1000. Claim is in the national work queue and being worked by Houston VARO. The development letter was the typical "we got your claim and are working on it". They sent a request to the Birmingham VAMC for medical treatment records from 1995-1999. Called the VAMC's Release of Information Office and they have 20 business days to complete the request.
      2019-11-25 Called 1-800-827-1000. Status still unchanged, but the suspense date of the medical treatment records request has expired. VA agent sent IRIS request. Called the VAMC's Release of Information Office. Paper copies were mailed via USPS certified mail to the Evidence Intake Center in Janesville, WI. They were nice enough to provide the USPS tracking number.
      2019-11-29 Certified mail tracking shows package was received by the Evidence Intake Center in Janesville, WI.
      2019-12-11 Called 1-800-827-1000. Paper copies have been scanned in to PDF. Waiting to be picked up by a VARO.
      2019-12-12 Called 1-800-827-1000. The call center agent (Donald) sent an IRIS request to inform the VARO that the claims are ready to proceed.
      2019-12-20 Moved you evidence gathering, review, and decision as of 2019-12-19. ETA January 23, 2020.
      2019-12-27 No change to va.gov status. Only change is ETA of May 27, 2020, which is five months out. Called 1-800-827-1000 and was given a strange status. First, they said they were waiting on more medical records from the VAMC from December 20, 2019 through January 20, 2020, which doesn't make much sense. I called back later in the day and was told something different. Called my POA VSO. They said the VA sent me a letter asking if I had any additional evidence to add. The VSO said the ETA is probably out so far because they are waiting for a response from someone outside of the VA system (i.e. me).
      2019-12-30 Checked va.gov and noticed it says they sent me a development letter and items need attention. Called 1-800-827-1000 and they said a letter was not sent out and they are not waiting on anything from me. My claim is still at the VARO and assigned to a VSR. They found a note indicating that the recent second request for VAMC medical records was in error. They said they have seen this happen before where it triggers the ETA date to be pushed out automatically. In this case, it cost me about six to seven weeks of unnecessary delay.
      2020-01-03 Checked va.gov and no change. Called 1-800-827-1000. The call center rep said it was confusing and transferred me to someone else who could help tell me what is going on. Talked with a friendly lady who said that on 2020-01-02, the person developing the claim sent a message to the quality department asking if the claim should have been submitted on 21-526EZ or 20-0995 (supplemental claim form). Fortunately, earlier today, @Dustoff 11 posted the exact information from M21-1 indicating that no specific form is required. I provided that to the lady and she sent a message to the VARO to let them know exactly where it is. No clue if they have actually processed my request and were just double-checking or if they still need to do it. At least I was able to help them to help me, I hope.
      2020-01-07 Well how about this. I received a letter in the mail from the VA yesterday which was dated 2019-12-20 requesting additional evidence (treatment records). Called 1-800-827-1000 and let them know this is for CUE and no new evidence could be added. They did say the request to revise is assigned to a rater, so that's promising.
      M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, Chapter 2, Section B - Revision of Decisions
      III.iv.2.B.4.d. Considering Requests for Revision Based on CUE
      2020-01-09 One week has passed since VARO asked about how to proceed regarding filing using a specific form. Called 1-800-827-1000. They said it is now awaiting a decision. Estimated completion date was moved from May 2020 to February 12, 2020, which is an improvement.
      2020-01-17 No change on va.gov. Called 1-800-827-1000. They said it was status 499 (National Work Queue), not assigned to an individual and waiting to be picked up. As of 1/8, it is still "Ready for decision". Estimated completion date still February 12, 2020.
    • By MarkP
      It was pointed out to me that I should file a CUE because my final rating decision although at 100% is not "permanent. They left it open for future exams. The person who suggested it just got his P&T rating and no further exams by claiming M-21-1, III.iv.3.B.2.c & d. Basically, because he was over the age of 55. My rating is for 100% for leukemia (CLL) (I know the rating criteria has been updated) and I'm over 55. Looking at the M21-1 and I feel I match four criteria listed. My question would be if the disability Rating Schedule says "perhaps" I will get reexamined in the future thinking I'm going to get cured, would that rating decision take precedent over the M21-1, or 38 CFR? I feel my condition is "static" and I have been getting worse for the past seven years and seven months, I'm over 55, the disability is permanent in character and I'm not likely going to improve,  and the evaluation (rating) is the minimum for the DC. This disability is permanent and I'm not going to be cured. There is no cure. I do realize with treatment I could go into remission some day (perhaps) and I'll understand a reevaluation if that occurs. Thoughts?
    • By RBrogen
      Quick question to see if anyone knows what happens if you win a CUE relative to back pay.  Does the VA automatically calculate any back pay based on individual solder and then you have to send them marriage cert, birth certs/ssns to show when you had your dependents added?
      I'm just curious ... not getting ahead of myself but IF I am fortunate enough to win my cue, it would mean back pay for 20 years and would also mean that I would have changed from 20% in 1999 to some higher number.  That would mean that my wife and children would also come into play starting in 2001 instead of 2019 like it is today.  I have all of that data ready but I was curious if they send you a letter first requesting it before back pay is released or if they do the initial backpay at single and you have to make the adjust it.
      Thanks as always,
      Randy
    • By RBrogen
      Happy Holidays Everyone,
      I wanted to let those of you who are interested know that the cue I filed for change of effective date from March 2018 to October 1999 is now in the "Preparation for Decision" status.  I mailed the formal CUE September 17, 2019 and it went to "Preparation for Decision" status today.  Now I'll be on pins and needles until I get the decision packet in the mail.  I'll keep you all posted!
      Best,
    • By TropicLightning125
      First I'd like to thank all of you for the great assistance you provide! I'm a long time lurker but finally created an account to post this question to the experts today.
      Background:
      - Discharged from active duty in September 2000
      - Participated in a "VA Pilot Program" where you sat with a VA clerk during out-processing to determine any potential disability claims, which were then submitted by the clerk for you.
      - In Jan 2001, received a decision letter with the following rating, back dated to my date of discharge: "Service connection for degenerative disease of low back has been established as directly related to military service. An evaluation of 10 percent is assigned under diagnostic code 5293. An evaluation of 10 percent is assigned if there are mild symptoms associated with intervertebral disc syndrome."
      Fast forward to 2018. I experienced a herniated L4-L5 disc and had a (mostly unsuccessful) discectomy . I applied for an increase for my Degenerative Disease of the lower back and for radiculopathy of the sciatic nerve in both legs. My claim was closed in October 2019 with no increase for the Degenerative Disc Disease (a story for another time, but a bad C&P was involved and I've already filed a supplemental), and new secondary ratings for the radiculopathy: 10% Left Leg and 10% Right Leg back dated to my 2018 surgery and the right leg increased for some unknown reason to 20% on the date of my (bad) C&P exam in August 2019.
      My question:
      In reviewing my original 2000 claim decision letter today, I found this statement listed under FACTS: "MRI findings have revealed degenerative changes and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine. EMG studies have revealed mild chronic recurrent L-4 root irritation."
      Keep in mind, at the time of discharge I was only rated for the Degenerative Disc Disease, not any leg/nerve issues, though it is clear from my Service Medical Records I also had recurring leg pain and numbness.
      Is it odd that they literally called out the EMG results in my rating decision but did not grant an award for Sciatic Paralysis/Neuralgia/Radiculopathy back in 2000? Based on the current schedule (http://www.militarydisabilitymadeeasy.com/lowernerves.html) I think the "mild chronic recurrent L-4 root irritation" would have granted a rating of 10% for incomplete partial paralysis (8520) and/or neuralgia (8720). But...did these codes even exist back in 2000? I certainly was not aware or told that the nerve/leg pain was a separate rating. How would I even go about finding out if these diagnostic codes existed in 2000?
      In the event there was a rating available for this back in 2000, would this be something that would be eligible for a CUE? Obviously after almost 20 years I'm well outside the window to appeal the decision, but I feel the clear unmistakable evidence is right in the VA's own decision letter, and 20 years of an additional 10% rating makes this worth my time and energy.
      Thanks again for all you do!
  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • Precedent Setting CAVC cases cited in the M21-1
      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
      • 5 replies
    • Any one heard of this , I filed a claim for this secondary to hypertension, I had a echo cardiogram, that stated the diagnosis was this heart disease. my question is what is the rating for this. attached is the Echo.

      doc00580220191213082945.pdf
      • 7 replies
    • Need your support - T-shirts Available - Please buy a mug or a membership
      if you have been thinking about subscribing to an ad-free forum or buying a mug now would a very helpful time to do that.

      Thank you for your support
      • 18 replies
    • OK everyone thanks for all the advice I need your help I called VSO complained about length of time on Wednesday of this week today I checked my E benefits and my ratings are in for my ankles that they were denying me 10% for each bilateral which makes 21% I was originally 80% now they’re still saying I’m 80% 

      I’m 50% pes planus 30% migraine headaches 20% lumbar 10% tinnitus and now bilateral 21% so 10% left and right ankle Can someone else please do the math because I come up with 86% which makes me 90 what am I missing please help and thank you
    • I was denied SC for IBS and GERD IN 2011. In 2019 I was awarded SC for GERD. This CUE  is for 2011, both GERD and IBS. There are some odd aspects regarding the 2011 decision, the way it was written and the C&P report and the way it was written. I've tried to present this as clearly as I can. Note: the decision contradicts itself. the decision also contradicts the C&P Report. Honestly, I think the rater just got confused because the C&P was so poorly written. *THIS CUE HAS NOT YET BEEN SUBMITTED*Please let me know what you think. Appreciate all comments and suggestions. Thanks.

       

      VA RATING DECISION MARCH 23 2011 GERD IBS.pdf C P REPORT 7312010 GERD IBS.pdf GERD IBS CUE 2011(1).pdf

      C P ADDENDUM REQUEST RE DIAGNOSIS 7232010.pdf
        • Like
      • 56 replies
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines