Earlier effective date question

[2NDMARDIVDOC]

I'll try to keep this short. Just looking for opinions and info. I currently have a claim in the pending decision phase. My VSO filed it as a CUE / reopen. That is exactly the wording on the claim application. The claim is for a condition that was denied back in 02. I NEVER DISPUTED the denial until 2 months ago. I submitted both new evidence as well as evidence that existed back then which I am arguing they didn't look at. So here is my question. In the event the CUE is denied, yet the condition gets service connected, is there a way to request the VA retro pays back to 2001 when I originally filed for the condition? 

 

[broncovet]

Whoa, Hoss!  

Get back to basics.  You need 3 things, (Caluza Triangle) for SC:

1.  CURRENT diagnosis of a disability.  You do not need a "diagnosis of a disability" in service.  

2.  In service event or aggravation.  You need a documented "event" or aggravation.  Aggravation suggests you had it before service and it got worse.  

3.  Nexus or link between one and 2, above.  You need a doctor to state, that your (current diagnosis) is "at least as likely as not" due to xx event in service.  

Get these and you should win service connection.  

It does not have to be disabling in service.  It sounds like a bogus denial, you do not have to prove you were disabled in service.  Reread what I wrote above.  If you have all 3 of these, then fight for SC.  If you dont have a nexus, or an in service event, then you have to have those documented before you will be SC.  

The doctors note (not disabling) is noise.  It may NOT have been "a disabilty" back then.  But it could have morphed into something disabiling now.  

An example of this is hearing loss due to noise exposure in service.  

No, the sound of a gun or aircraft may not have made you disabled in service.  However, these things can cause irreversable hearing loss that worsens over time.   Eventually, your hearing loss can reach the "threshold level" for service connection, as it often worsens over time.  

Exposure to jet fuel is another example.  It can cause serious problems down the road.  

 

 

[broncovet]

Back to your question on effective dates.  It may possibly be a CUE error that your rating specialist did NOT follow the Caluza triangle that I outlined, above.   The rating specialist has to rate you ON THE CRITERIA.  He cannot deny you because you drink Budweiser or dye your hair purple.  Those are not rating criteria.   I dont know whether its CUE or not.  You may not even have to prove CUE IF, (for example):

1.  You submitted new SERVICE records, which documented your in service event or aggravation. 38 CFR 3.156 C.   

2.  You submitted new eviidence WITHIN the appeal period.  38 CFR 3.156 B.  (pending claim).  

You may want to take your file to an experienced NOVA attorney to see if they think they can win you an earlier effecitve date.  

Edited January 28, 2017 by broncovet

[2NDMARDIVDOC]

This is the best I could do with providing you with the original denial from 02. I cannot scan or do I just took a pic of the letter. Please let me know if you can't read it and I'll try something else. Thanks. 

[Buck52]

Note:

Click on the VA Letter above to increase the size to read it.

[broncovet]

The letter is pretty clear they did not have service records for tinea pedis.  3.156 C says the service records have to be MATERIAL.  Certainly, if your service records contain evidence of tinea pedis, then you should resubmit them under 3.156 C, and seek an earlier effective date if awarded.  

If the potential retro is large, and it sounds like it is, then consider a NOVA accredited attorney to represent you.  

I say this over and over, but there is a good chance EAJA fees pay for your lawyer, in part or in full.  

[2NDMARDIVDOC]

14 minutes ago, broncovet said:

The letter is pretty clear they did not have service records for tinea pedis.  3.156 C says the service records have to be MATERIAL.  Certainly, if your service records contain evidence of tinea pedis, then you should resubmit them under 3.156 C, and seek an earlier effective date if awarded.  

If the potential retro is large, and it sounds like it is, then consider a NOVA accredited attorney to represent you.  

I say this over and over, but there is a good chance EAJA fees pay for your lawyer, in part or in full.  

Bronco... the issue is the bladder condition not the foot condition. Thanks. 

10 hours ago, Buck52 said:

Note:

Click on the VA Letter above to increase the size to read it.

This is the best I could do with providing you with the original denial from 02. I cannot scan or do I just took a pic of the letter. Please let me know if you can't read it and I'll try something else. Thanks.