C-File, does RO's claims specialist opinion / interpretation of evidence, appear in C-File?

[MKAH]

Just wondering, does the RO's claims specialist opinion / interpretation of evidence, appear in C-File?

Thank You

[allansc2005]

Berta, did you see the "What we decided.." redacted copy I posted concerning the CUE?

Allan

2-2-0 HUAH!

[Berta]

I am still looking for that Allan....this thread got a little confusing

[allansc2005]

Berta, enclosed is the decision letter. Now even though the CUE is included in the "What we considered.." portion of the approval letter, the VA never admits that they made an error.

Allan

 

 

2-2-0 HUAH!

[Berta]

If the VA does decide and award what you wanted via the CUE, they won't admit to having caused a CUE.

Does this award cover what the CUE was for?

The only entity that often will admit to CUE is the BVA. That doesn't happen  often and means the claimant filed a Motion for CUE against a BVA decision and they were successful.

This is how the VA can prevent OIG and VA Central Office  from really knowing how many errors they make.

Also recently I coprrected a post here somewhere that quoted a link as saying CUE is a one shot deal.

That is not true. The BVA ( VAROs wont do this) if they deny a CUE claim, often states in the decision that the claim is "dismissed without prejudice" and can be refiled ( if the veteran overomes what it lacked in the first place.

If you feel that their decision is still wrong and contains a CUE, by all means do what I did on my HBP 1151 CUE, file another CUE right away on the faulty decision.I was so angry I filed it as an IRIS complaint and either faxed it or emailed it to the director of my RO within days of the denial.

They reversed their denial right away.

We had a former member here about 2 years ago who was practically calling us CUE claimants liars because our decisions did not formally state they made a CUE.But it was solely due to our CUE claims that got the VA thumbs out of their butts , to actually read the evidence of CUE and then to  award.

 

[allansc2005]

Berta, I'm not really angry that the RO didn't address the CUE, after all it was included in "What we considered..", in winning my IU, but it makes me wonder if the CUE can be used in the future if need be?

Also, on another note, as I talked to Buck about, is the fact that I'm now at 90% scheduler, 100% P&T IU, and yet the VA in it's decision didn't address anything about SMC's.

I have no single conditions over 40%,  but Buck seems to think the VA should have addressed SMC's based on both my IU and my 90% scheduler.

Comments?

Thanks,

Allan

2-2-0 HUAH!

[Berta]

This is what I mean:

"Given that the Moving Party's pleading could encompass any number of theories that may be raised by the record, but does not specifically identify an error or errors in the Board's decision, the Board concludes that the Moving Party's motion to reverse or revise the Board's April 6, 2015 decision lacks the necessary specificity required by the above cited authorities. It would be prejudicial to him for the Board to accept as legally sufficient a motion, which as defined under applicable law is not legally sufficient and which would foreclose any opportunity for him to raise a legally sufficient motion. Hillyard, 695 F.3d at 1259. Therefore, it must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. ORDER The motion is dismissed without prejudice to refiling."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp16/files2/1611309.txt

In this case, it appears that there had been many erroneous decision ( I assume at the RO level)

ORDER

"CUE in a December 1975 and subsequent rating decisions warrants
assignment of an effective date of December 16, 1975, for special
monthly compensation at a rate equal to that provided for by
38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(n); the appeal is granted to this extent, subject
to the law and regulations concerning the award of monetary benefits."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp94/files1/9405865.txt

In this case below however the BVA grants a CUE Motion and admits to causing the CUE.

"Had the factual and legal errors discussed above not been committed, the October 28, 2008 Board decision manifestly would have granted presumptive service connection under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1112 and 38 CFR § 3.303(b) for the "chronic disease" of arthritis (DJD) of the lumbar spine based on the unrebutted finding of continuous post-service symptoms of arthritis and diagnoses of arthritis already in the record. The Board finds that the October 28, 2008 Board decision is clearly and unmistakably erroneous; therefore, the October 28, 2008 Board decision should be revised, resulting in a grant of service connection for DJD (arthritis) of the lumbar spine, effective from May 18, 2005, the date of receipt of the Veteran's claim for service connection. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7111; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1400, 20.1403, 20.1404.

ORDER The October 28, 2008 Board decision, having been found to be clearly and unmistakably erroneous in denying service connection for a low back disability of DJD of the lumbar spine, is revised to reflect a grant of service connection for DJD of the lumbar spine from May 18, 2005, the date of claim."

https://www.va.gov/vetapp17/files2/1706415.txt

-----------------------------------------------------

Re: the SMC S question-----

I have no idea  on what  regulation Buck is basing his opinion on.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Berta