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


    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:   


  • 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  



So I find out today that my claim has a deferred item. I filed for a bladder condition and shoulder condition. My shoulder was granted 20% and my bladder issue was deferred. I really don't understand that. I submitted a ton of evidence as well as 2 nexus letters from 2 different doctors. My bladder CP exam was very much in my favor. The examiner also opined that the bladder was service connected. The only hiccup is that the bladder claim was filed as a reopen / CUE from a denial back in 02. Could a large retro be holding it up? Any thoughts? 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Your guess is as good as ours, as you know your medical/claims history MUCH MUCH better than we do.  

Leroy Macklem, however, would suggest that not to be the case as the Extrordinary Awards Program (delays for retro over 25 grand) was found to be CUE.  This does not mean that VA did/does not do it anyway, however, they just dont advertise it.    


More likely:  There is "an issue" with your deferred claim.  Of course I dont know what that issue is.  

Chances are likely that "some" of the evidence you thought you had went AWOL, that is, missing.  That is all pure speculation, tho.  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

As I recall you had what appeared to be a very valid CUE claim basis on the bladder condition.


I certainly feel that is what they deferred.

"The only hiccup is that the bladder claim was filed as a reopen / CUE from a denial back in 02 "

Re -opens are different from CUEs but if you laid out the CUE well (there are plenty of CUE templates here)

I would think they would get it and "defered " in this case could mean they need time to do a retro rating.

We had a former member who questioned some of us as to our CUE awards.

Sometimes VA will admit they made a CUE, or sometimes they will state the award differently.

I gave an example of my last CUE here the other day.

VA had denied the claim on March 4, 2015. I filed a CUE Yourself claim via email ASAP March 6th and March 7th,listed as evidence.

VA awarded the claim on April 2, 2015 stating:

"We received a request to reopen a previous claim on March 27,2015."

I think the VA is characterizing CUE claims as 're opens', when they are awarded so they do not appear as CUE claims due to VA errors.

My SMC CUE was identified as CUE  in my Nehmer decision when they awarded it.And not a 're open'.

And when the NY VISN  regional counsel called CUE on them in my behalf many years ago( I didnt even know he did this) they clearly stated his request was for CUE and they sent me the cash. A five figure payment.The amount was wrong and they sent me more money when I called their attention to it.I knew they had erred but had been trying to get that corrected administratively without filing CUE. A subsequent claim I filed is how the RC got involved.

My point is if your CUE was stated as within the CUE criteria as in many templates here, it does not really matter what they call the claim if they award.

But still it has been bothering me however that they use 're open ' sometimes so they don't have to admit they made a CUE in the award letter.I think all of my CUEs except the RC one were violations of 38 CFR 4.6 CUE-the most important regulation we have.My pending CUE is as well.

They probably dont want anything on the books to show their violations of this important reg because by violating it, their job is easy....they can deny right off the bat without even considering probative evidence. and if we dont raise hell right away, we would be out of the RO hair and waiting a long time for a BVA decision.( worse yet...VA told me many years ago my SMC CUE was with a ' specialist', and remained with the specialist for years.(that claim filed in 2004 took until 2012 to be awarded-by a different VARO)and I realized as some point the RO was waiting for me to kick the bucket. There was no 'specialist'.

The Nehmer VARO had no problems at all awarding it. They had read the evidence.

The BVA however if they award a CUE have no problems calling it what it is.

Lets face it -if a VARO shows on the books they awarded 150 re-opens in 2016  instead of saying they awarded 100 re opens and 50 CUE claims, that would show they erred in applying proper VA case law to 50 of those claimants and/or violated 38 CFR 4.6- application of which, is exactly what they are paid to do.





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

forgot to add... maybe even deferred for a Fenderson rating, if it was at a ratable level in the denial you CUED.'Fendersons' are explained here under a search .

forgot to mention also -where my RO got the March 27th 2015 "re open" date

for the CUE I mentioned above....is no where in the decision but they did add the whole 38 CFR 4.6 I cued them on.

I think maybe by March 27th,2015 they managed to become  literate enough to read the regulations and also my sole piece of Probative evidence.

The EED they awarded for my dead husband' s HBP 1151, was Aug 9 ,1992. 

The CUE was in a 1998 decision.


Edited by Berta

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks Berta. I looked further into the deferred item and on ebenefits there is a tab that says "needed from others" I clicked on it and all it says <VA medical center> That's it, nothing else.... The laughable part is that below that, it says that I can provide the requested documents to speed the process up..... There is NOTHING that shows what they are even asking for? How can I provide something when they aren't saying what it is??? All that's there is <VA medical center> I've already had a C&P exam which like I said was very much in my favor and 2 nexus letters from different Doctors stating it was present in my active duty and military medical records to prove it. Im totally lost as to what they could be asking for in addition to what I've already submitted??

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.

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  

  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • Rating "Protections"
      The VA has several regulations governing various levels of "protection". The terms "permanent", "protection", and "total" are misnomers due to the various ways the VA has defined them.

      Here is some information on VA ratings protection (but the word "protection" has a different meaning to the VA). The exception to these rules is if they can prove fraud.

      5 years

      The key part to remember about the 5 year rule is found 3.327(a) indicating that these are guidelines which are not necessarily set in stone. The key takeaway for most veterans is reduction should not occur if there has not been material improvement over 5+ years or if the veteran is over the age of 55.


      10 years

      In brief, ratings in effect for 10 years cannot have service connection severed.


      20 years

      In brief, a disability rated for 20 years cannot be reduced below the lowest rating percentage it has held for the previous 20 years.








      Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert, so use at own risk and/or consult a professional representative. The VA updates their regulations from time to time, so this information may become outdated.
        • Like
      • 5 replies
    • Everything Veterans Affairs does with your service connected disability compensation claim, is governed by law. You may want to bookmark this page as a reference as you proceed with your claim.

      It can be a bit daunting. Just remember the U.S.C. is the law, the C.F.R. is how they interpret the law and last but certainly not least is the V.A. adjudication manuals that is how they apply the law. The section of the law that covers the veterans benefits is Title 38 in the U.S.C. in the C.F.R. is usually written 38 C.F.R. or something similar.

      It's helpful to understand how statutes, regulations, and VA directives such as the VA’s Adjudication Procedures Manual, the M21-1MR (Manual M21-1MR.) are related. Of these three sources of law, the statute, written by Congress, is the highest form. The statute that governs veterans’ benefits is found in Title 38 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). The VA writes regulations to carry out the laws written by Congress; these are found in Title 38 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). The VA’s internal instructions for adjudicating claims are contained in the Manual M21-1MR. VA regulations may not conflict with any statute; the manual’s provisions may not conflict with either statute or regulations. If they do, the Court has the power to invalidate them.


      U.S.C. United States Code United States Code is the law and the U.S.C. is the governments official copy of the code.

      U.S.C.A. United States Code Annotated U.S.C.A. contain everything that is printed in the official U.S. Code but also include annotations to case law relevant to the particular statute.

      C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations The C.F.R. is the interpretation of the law

      VA M-21 Compensation and Pension Manual

      VA M-21-4 C & P Procedures

      VA M28-3 Vocational Rehabilitation

      VA M29-1 VBA Insurance Manual
      • 0 replies
    • HadIt.com Branded 11oz Coffee Mug for sale
      11oz Coffee Mug with HadIt.com Logo and Motto $12
      • 0 replies
    • Show your support with HadIt.com logo items. Only a few to start, t-shirts and ball caps coming https://hadit.com/shop/ Can holder, Coffee Mugs and Notebook currently come take a look and check back https://hadit.com/shop/

      • 0 replies
    • I was unable to find a reply box to your post.

      We have a full Agent Orange forum here.

      Many veterans (and even their survivors) have succeeded in getting a disability, not on the presumptive list, service connected due to their proven exposure to AO.

      Also Secretary Wilkie is considering a few new presumptives, but we have no idea if  he will even add any to the list.

      I wrote to him making a strong argument, as  to the potential for HBP to be added, as well as ischemic stroke and have prepared a personal claim based on the same report a veteran used at the BVA, who also had a strong IMO/IME, and the BVA recently granted his HBP as due to his exposure to AO in Vietnam.

      Most veterans with HBP were deemed as having "essential" - a medical term for no know cause- now we have a cause in Vietnam veterans---AO caused it.


      The report is here:


      On page 8 they found there is "Sufficient" evidence that AO caused HBP in Vietnam veterans.

      The BVA case and this report is also searchable in our AO forum.



      • 0 replies
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines