Adjunicated

[marinejay]

Went to the D.A.V and got a printout of the status of my claim, The nso told methat it was being adjunicated and it means that its at the raters desk and i said i bet its not, its probably sitting in a pile of some where being lost. When i call the 800 number they can't bring it up in the system (file is locked and its a sensitive).

Its in L.A, i had put in for an increase and a secondary condition back in sept, and open some new claims and added my imo like 2 wks ago. If they rate my claim and deny it, i know the va is screwed up. Because i didn't have a c&p exam and i know they wouldn't have my imo as yet. For some reason things take long to go to LA.

Just need some thoughts.

marinejay

[Objee]

Went to the D.A.V and got a printout of the status of my claim, The nso told methat it was being adjunicated and it means that its at the raters desk and i said i bet its not, its probably sitting in a pile of some where being lost. When i call the 800 number they can't bring it up in the system (file is locked and its a sensitive).

Its in L.A, i had put in for an increase and a secondary condition back in sept, and open some new claims and added my imo like 2 wks ago. If they rate my claim and deny it, i know the va is screwed up. Because i didn't have a c&p exam and i know they wouldn't have my imo as yet. For some reason things take long to go to LA.

Just need some thoughts.

marinejay

Technically, adjudication starts with assessing the probative value of all the evidence and ends when the decision letter is ready to be written. So, that's where you are. B)

Ralph

[Guest rickb54]

Marinejay,

I think the last two paragraphs explain the va adjudication process best.

Adjudication is defined as:

The legal process of resolving a dispute. The formal giving or pronouncing of a judgment or decree in a court proceeding; also the judgment or decision given. The entry of a decree by a court in respect to the parties in a case. It implies a hearing by a court, after notice, of legal evidence on the factual issue(s) involved. The equivalent of a determination. It indicates that the claims of all the parties thereto have been considered and set at rest.

Three types of disputes are resolved through adjudication: disputes between private parties, such as individuals or corporations; disputes between private parties and public officials; and disputes between public officials or public bodies. The requirements of full adjudication include notice to all interested parties (all parties with a legal interest in, or legal right affected by, the dispute) and an opportunity for all parties to present evidence and arguments. The adjudicative process is governed by formal rules of evidence and procedure. Its objective is to reach a reasonable settlement of the controversy at hand. A decision is rendered by an impartial, passive fact finder, usually a judge, jury, or administrative tribunal.

The adjudication of a controversy involves the performance of several tasks. The trier must establish the facts in controversy, and define and interpret the applicable law, or, if no relevant law exists, fashion a new law to apply to the situation. Complex evidentiary rules limit the presentation of proofs, and the Anglo-American tradition of stare decisis, or following precedents, controls the outcome. However, the process of applying established rules of law is neither simple nor automatic. Judges have considerable latitude in interpreting the statutes or case law upon which they base their decisions.

An age-old question that still plagues legal theorists is whether judges "make" law when they adjudicate. Sir William Blackstone believed that judges do nothing more than maintain and expound established law (Commentaries on the Laws of England); other writers vehemently disagree. Some legal analysts maintain that the law is whatever judges declare it to be. Echoing those sentiments, President Theodore Roosevelt asserted that "the chief lawmakers in our country may be, and often are, the judges, because they are the final seat of authority. Every time they interpret … they necessarily enact into law parts of a system of social philosophy; and as such interpretation is fundamental, they give direction to all law-making" (Message to Congress [Dec. 8, 1908]). Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, writing in The Nature of the Judicial Process, argued that the law is evolutionary and that judges, by interpreting and applying it to specific sets of facts, actually fashion new laws.

Whether judges are seen as making law or merely following what came before, they are required to operate within narrow strictures. Even when they are deciding a case of first impression (a question that has not previously been adjudicated), they generally try to analogize to some existing precedent. Judges often consider customs of the community; political and social implications; customs of the trade, market, or profession; and history when applying the law. Some, such as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo, thought that considerations of social and public policy are the most powerful forces behind judicial decisions.

A hearing in which the parties are given an opportunity to present their evidence and arguments is essential to an adjudication. Anglo-American law presumes that the parties to the dispute are in the best position to know the facts of their particular situations and develop their own proofs. If the hearing is before a court, formal rules of procedure and evidence govern; a hearing before an administrative agency is generally less structured.

Following the hearing, the decision maker is expected to deliver a reasoned opinion. This opinion is the basis for review if the decision is appealed to a higher tribunal (a court of appeals). It also helps ensure that decisions are not reached arbitrarily. Finally, a well-reasoned opinion forces the judge to carefully think through his or her decision in order to be able to explain the process followed in reaching it.

Adjudication of a controversy generally ensures a fair and equitable outcome. Because courts are governed by evidentiary and procedural rules, as well as by stare decisis, the adjudicative process assures litigants of some degree of efficiency, uniformity, and predictability of result.

[Testvet]

they deny claims all the time without giving C&P exams, I have about 3 feet of denials before they ever gave me a C&P

[marinejay]

I know, if the deny the claim i am going to put in an appeal/nod either the day i recieve the envelope or the next day. no wonder the va is clogged up, those guys are not rating people right the first time. May be if the do it right the first time it would ease up the syster a bit.

The last time L.A did good on my rating, this time i have an imo and doctors evidence to back it up. so hope fully the get it right.

marine jay

[Testvet]

good luck south carolina has one of the worst remand rates in the nation from BVA which obviously means they are not working the claims right from the get go it's over 50%

[marinejay]

Man it would suck to have a claim in S.C. I was looking through my old claims and for all of them i got letters telling me they recieved info about opening a new claim. And for my last claim that i opened on sep 23 06, I have not recieved anything. But today when i went to va and the nso and i looked in the system via m-14 (i may be wrong) it showed it as adjuncated. Something is not right and i am worried. I am starting to become pessimic (wrong spelling). Its kinda quick to be adjuncated.

marinejay