can i file a cue as a fdc fully developed claim

[mos1833]

if i file a cue , can i call it a fdc type of claim, all the proof is already in my file.

[mos1833]

any body ??

[Berta]

I guess you could but it cannot be the same evidence they used to deny your last CUE, or filed on the same basis.

 

[mos1833]

berta, its a request for the va to reconsider my back claim using the correct law and regulations . they said i was not intitled to benefits because my back injury was a defect and not a desease, so if they use 82-90 it would provide a sc rating ,there is a lot more to 82-90 , but its clear they never considered what the regulation calls for.

thanks

[Berta]

"  On 10/7/2015 at 1:02 PM, Berta said:

 

I dont even know if the VA  would re open a case that was lost at the Federal Court level.

berta i went to the federal court, because the secretary appealed the courts decision . and the fedes ruled in my favor,it took six 6 yaers"

 

http://community.hadit.com/topic/64353-gencoun-prec-82-90/?page=7

 

There are 304 hits here at hadit for this Pres op ( 82-90) and considerable discussion.

Did you ever get an IMO/IME to try to re-open with ?

It appeared to me that ,regardless of the General Counsel Pres Op, the VA had something else they used against the claim, after I read the CAVC case....I believe it was a post service back injury that fell under workman's comp.......I could be wrong....

was this your BVA case?

http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files1/1009831.txt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Berta

[mos1833]

that is one of the many 95-42 640 claims , i got this number which was another vets claim number, at the same time ?? he used it twice , the rest are me.

any way i told the r.o. that i never filed for workmans comp, and told them the address of the company they requested, all this on the phone, so it was taken care of .no opinion has discussed my claim using 82-90 ,

my medical records show from the first x-ray  ( changes ) related to my back condition. my first x-ray in 1984 just stated = osteoarthritis related to the anomaly which were pointed out to be  ( changes )

oh' i dont know if it matters or not but 82-90 is retroactive  according to  ( O'bryan v. mcdonald )

in 1984 the dr. didnt even give a nexus opinion, the only evidence against my claim was the interpretation of the x-ray made by the board which had a doctor on it , but no body signed it .even then they said i had osteoarthritis in my back but denied it because it was related to a defect ,and denied any presumpatives regulations.

thanks

 

 

 

 

 

[Berta]

I have the full CAVC docket but this concerns me ( this has been discussed here before)

"08/16/2004		Appellee's Notice of Appeal to the USCA for the Federal Circuit (M-8/16/2004) (MEYERK) (VB)
08/17/2004		Appellee's Notice of Appeal transmitted to USCA for the Federal Circuit (MEYERK) (VB)
09/01/2004		RECEIVED: Notice of docketing from the USCA for the Fed Cir dated 8/27/04 (#04-7159) (MEYERK) (VB)
03/07/2008		RECEIVED: Ord from USCA for the Fed. Circuit dated 3/5/08, the judgment of the CAVC is summarily affirmed and the case is remanded (#2004-7159) (MEYERK) (VB)
05/05/2008		RECEIVED: Ord from USCA for the Fed. Circuit dated 3/5/08, the judgment of the CAVC is summarily affirmed and the case is remanded; issued as a mandate 4/28/08 (#2004-7159) (MEYERK) (VB)
06/04/2008		Mandate (MEYERK) (VB)"   You had the same lawyer that was on the BVA case I found. Daniel G. Krasnegor . Coincidence I guess.... This docket summary says the Fed Circuit affirmed the CAVC  case and issued a mandate.   Can you scan and attach the mandate? Did you ever get an IMO/IME that would have altered their decision?