Jump to content

Sponsored Ads



  • Advertisemnt

  • 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
     
  • Advertisemnt

  • 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

  • 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

Sponsored Ads

  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

  • 1
Sign in to follow this  
Rich p

100% ptsd, rated SMC

Question

If you actually receive regular treatment for ptsd, Clemons Vs Shinseki 2009, is all that is needed to advance your claim. If it is a documented fact of record, Clemons requires a substantially complete adjudication. Missed evidence in your record fails Clemons and requires the VA to redress. Clemons put a higher requirement on the adjudicator. They didn't get it at first in my case, but I just pointed to a material fact, claimed great weight for my doctors statements, and presented Clemons. When from 50 to SMC, over six years. I hope this helps, the VA, DOJ, and our VSO's are way behind the curve on this. The decision came from the CCVA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Congratulations!  Is it possible for  you to  supply a link, or give a docket number to that great win, for other Vets?    As you may already know, MOST CAVC cases are public knowledge.  I do admit its unclear to me when/why some CAVC cases are "unpublished".  

Perhaps the "unpublished" cases have "sensitive issues" for example, issues of MST.   Of course, MST is not THE ONLY sensistive issue, there are many others. 

If yours is one of the ones with "sensitive issues" then I apologize in advance for asking you to post it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad

  • 0

Broncovet

I believe  Clemons vs Shinseki is referring to a miss diagnose or a wrong diagnose that would other wise give the veteran a lower rating and it would change things for the veteran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 6/29/2017 at 7:01 AM, broncovet said:

Congratulations!  Is it possible for  you to  supply a link, or give a docket number to that great win, for other Vets?    As you may already know, MOST CAVC cases are public knowledge.  I do admit its unclear to me when/why some CAVC cases are "unpublished".  

Perhaps the "unpublished" cases have "sensitive issues" for example, issues of MST.   Of course, MST is not THE ONLY sensistive issue, there are many others. 

If yours is one of the ones with "sensitive issues" then I apologize in advance for asking you to post it.  

My information was from the helpdeskvetsfirst.org, or the paralyzed veterans of American. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 6/29/2017 at 7:43 AM, Buck52 said:

Broncovet

I believe  Clemons vs Shinseki is referring to a miss diagnose or a wrong diagnose that would other wise give the veteran a lower rating and it would change things for the veteran

Clemons state the VBA has a higher duty to narrow a claim filed with a mental health condition. In Clemons the veteran was claiming PTSD which the VA continued to deny. When the case arrived at the CCVA the secretary was ask if they noticed the veterans other mental health diagnosis. The court then claimed a mental health claimant in capible of narrowing their own claims, this require VBA to identify and address any and all material facts from the onset. VBA fails Clemons if a material fact exist in your record and has not been addressed in a statement of case. I still have 8 diagnosis in my record never addressed, still in appeal

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Ads

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Our picks

    • I would like to meet other Hadit members who live in Michigan.  We have at least two major VA Hospitals (Battle Creek, Ann Arbor).  Or maybe you go to the the John Dingell in Detroit.  

      I like Ann Arbor.  I like the fact that most of the doctors there are also at the UM Hospital.  I don't like how uickly they seem to turn over though.  
      • 2 replies
    • Really?
      I am confused.  A few days ago I spoke to a person at a VARO who said if I die from something other than service-connected my husband gets zero, zilch, squat.  Hmmmmmm, it seems the rules change willy-nilly...I have been rated 100% P & T for over 10 years, MS is static, and I am 56 years of age.

      Can a fellow Veteran shed a light on this?

      Thank you.
      • 15 replies
    • Fund raising for HadIt.com
      The site is supported through ads and ad free subscriptions, we are also asking for any support you would like to send our way. You can give a $1 or more it all helps. Keep in mind though that it is NOT tax deductible and we are NOT a non profit. As the site grows so do the costs and ads and subscription do not always keep pace with the costs. Any help is appreciated, but not required.
      • 8 replies
    • Carol Ozanecki- Blue Water vet Advocate called me with this news:

      https://www.stripes.com/news/lawmakers-launch-new-effort-to-provide-agent-orange-coverage-for-blue-water-navy-vets-1.525395

      Also there is a article in Pop Culture she sent to me----mentionig Blue Water vets buy I felt it was too political to post here. You can google it if you want to read it.

       

       
      • 9 replies
    • Cue Claim Template?
      I was told by my VSO to write a statement for a CUE claim. I am looking at the CUE because the VA didn't follow VA Training Letter 10-02 that should have directly S/C'ed me for my tinnitus without an exam, but also because they approved my Re-open claim 2 years later and the only difference was a new C&P exam.

      Any help would be great. This is what I came up with:

      I respectfully request the VA to call a clear and unmistakable error on part of the January 3, 2013 decision from the Boise VARO and to correct it.

      In this Decision Letter, I was denied service-connection for Tinnitus. I mentioned tinnitus (ringing in the ears) on my April 4, 2012 Statement in Support of Claim for hearing loss. Tinnitus is listed as a deferred claim on my September 4, 2012 Decision Letter. I submitted a Statement in Support of Claim for Tinnitus on September 5, 2012 and again on October 25, 2012.

      I was given a C&P exam on August 14, 2012 by Audiology and Hearing Aid Center in Boise, Idaho.

      I received my Decision letter with the denial of Tinnitus on January 3, 2013 stating that “Your service treatment records do not contain complaints, treatment or diagnosis for this condition”.

      During my C&P exam, it was stated that I didn’t have any mention of tinnitus in my Service Treatment Records (STR).

      On the Compensation and Pension Exam Inquiry dated July 13, 2012 on page 3, the hearing exam that was completed on 4/1/2008 is also where my tinnitus was identified while in service, but there was no mention of my tinnitus in the inquiry.

      The evidence listed on my Decision Letter dated January 13, 2013 listed Service Treatment Records from June 5, 1989 to March 3, 2010.

      In VA Training Letter 10-02 dated March 18, 2010, on page 7, item #5 it states: If service treatment records mention a complaint of tinnitus and the veteran claims tinnitus and has current complaints of tinnitus, a medical opinion regarding possible causation is not required. Service connection can be established without an opinion about the specific cause of the tinnitus because it began in service.

      The VA's failure to consider and evaluate the evidence and follow VA Training Letters that the VA had in their possession manifestly altered the outcome of the decision referred to above.

      If the Tinnitus claim was approved on the Decision Letter dated January 13, 2013, it would have increased my rating from 60% to 70% at the time.
      • 30 replies
×

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines