Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
Our picks
-
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability ratingPicked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Welcome to hadit!
There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not. Try reading this:
https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in What is the DIC timeline?
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Good question.
Maybe I can clear it up.
The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more. (my paraphrase).
More here:
Source:
https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
broncovet
My BVA decision arrived yesterday, with mixed results. On one hand, as my attorney said, TDIU was awarded.
Summary:
The, the decision specifically "forked" (DIVIDED) MY tdiu into 2 parts:
1. 2002 to 2004 (denied)
2. 2004 to 2006 (approved).
While Im greatful for the award, it was about 1/3 of what I think it should have been. Redacted version:
"For the time period (2002 to 2004, date redacted), the evidence does not establish the Veterans bilateral hearing loss-his only service connected disability during that time period-rendered him unable to secure or maintain SGE".
end of redacted decision quote.
My analysis. The decison went on to award TDIU from 2004 to 2006, based on hearing loss AND depression with a combined evaluation of 40 percent. It was "extraschedular" TDIU under 38 cfr 4.16 b. I find the boards reasons and bases to be in error, because my 2005 VARO decision established that depression was secondary to hearing loss, AND the Board "probably" did not have that decision available, as I have had much shredded evidence. Thus the boards reasoning that my "only sc disability" at the time was hearing loss does not apply because its not my fault the VA made an error on the effective date for depression, as the evidence established I was depressed, and, later this depression was sc.
My opinion is the board decision is a "post hoc rationalization" to justify a weak effective date. I had applied for TDIU in 2002 (the date of application) and the general rule for effective dates is the later of the "date of application" or facts found. There was no doctor evidence that said I was employable from 2002 to 2004, but rather my SC disabiloities (one of which was NOT YET SC) rendered me unemployable. I think its error for the VA to conclude that because the depression was "not yet" service connected, that meant my depression was NSC. This means the etiology of depression had to change: From 2002-2004 my depression was "unrelated to service" while after 2004, "poof" the depression was related to service. This did not happen, my etiology did not change, there is no evidence of that.
Equally important, the board failed to adjuticate SMC S, when I had specifically asked for consideration of SMC S under the HOWELL CRITERIA. See here:
https://asknod.org/2014/08/25/cavc-howell-v-nicholson-what-smc-s-really-says/ In pertinent part, since Im tdiu, Im unable to leave the home "for work" using the Howell criteria.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
6
6
2
2
Popular Days
Aug 16
9
Sep 10
3
Aug 18
2
Aug 21
2
Top Posters For This Question
broncovet 6 posts
Buck52 6 posts
treysnonna 2 posts
jfrei 2 posts
Popular Days
Aug 16 2017
9 posts
Sep 10 2017
3 posts
Aug 18 2017
2 posts
Aug 21 2017
2 posts
Popular Posts
broncovet
My BVA decision arrived yesterday, with mixed results. On one hand, as my attorney said, TDIU was awarded. Summary: The, the decision specifically "forked" (DIVIDED) MY tdiu into 2 part
broncovet
Thank you for your answer, BUCK!. I agree that I should "accept IU" and appeal effective date. I also agree that I did not meet the requirments for STATUATORY SMC (100 plus 60) AT THAT TIME.
broncovet
Carefully read Alex's post again. Remember, the VA denied Howell NOT on his failure to meet statuatory requirments (100 plus 60), but because the Veteran showed up for a c and p exam, so the VA conc
22 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now