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  

CUE for Eczema-like condition going to RAMP


I have another thread at  the link below.   Two years ago I filed for an increase on my skin condition and requested a back date to May 2009 when I retired.  I have been through a lot since then.  For skin conditions rated the same as eczema, the condition is rated on area of coverage or on how often you have to be on systemic (oral or needle) medications.  I was given 0% in 2009 when I retired and didn't know that I was being low-balled because I did not know my condition was related analogous to eczema. 

When I learned of this two years ago, I put in a claim requesting a higher rating and a back date to 2009.  First, I had an inept examiner that left out my medications.  I was denied and I reopened my claim for reconsideration saying the examiner had messed up.  Then my claim was denied again because the VA said I did not attend a new exam; they later admitted the exam was never scheduled.  Then I was scheduled for a new exam, but I noticed that someone had opened up a claim for increase on warts on my left hand, which was service connected at 0 when I retired.  I was concerned this skin exam was for the wrong thing, but I was assured by IRIS, and the VA 1000 number, that it was a full skin exam.  After travelling 1.5 hours to the exam, I learned the examiner could only look for warts on my left hand and could not discuss my other skin condition.  I was denied again.

At this point, I asked my dermatologist to sign a DBQ I filled out for him although he had never treated this particular skin condition.  However, I provided all the medical info and he signed the DBQ.  I reopened my claim again, sent in the new DBQ, and was finally awarded 60% and became 100% P&T,  but VA ignored my request for an earlier effective date.  So I reopened the claim again.  It only took 9 days for them to deny me saying my medication wasn't considered systemic and that due to a policy change they were able to reward me 60% in 2017 but they could not award 60% in 2009.  I quickly pointed out that CUE had to be based on law, not a "policy change", and that the skin law in my case had not changed since 2002.  There were also US Court of Veteran Appeal cases that supported my claim (see more at the link below).  My claim was opened again. 

This time VA sent me to another exam, which I felt was completely unnecessary since new evidence cannot be used in a CUE claim.  According to my VSO, they wanted to know if my condition was as bad as had just been determined a couple of months prior.  I felt like they were trying to prove fraud at this point, like I was only taking the medication I've been taking for 20 years to get a higher rating.  The exam was on 9 May 2017 and went well.  Despite being on suppressive medication, my skin disease made an appearance.  I reviewed the exam with my VSO and it seems the examiner got all the facts necessary for a success. 

I just got a copy of my decision from my VSO today.  Once again, the letter completely ignored my request for a back date.  Instead they acted as if I had requested an increase and denied that.  I was already rated at the maximum for my skin condition.  

So today, I filed a NOD and filed the Opt-in for RAMP.  I have selected the Higher-Level Review with the "informal conference" which could increase the length of time for my RAMP decision.  However, I don't want any surprises.  But as long as I was filing RAMP for the skin disease, I added a request for an earlier effective date for my upper peripheral neuropathy. 

I am so glad that RAMP has been opened to everyone (unless you have a docket number).  I wanted to jump on the RAMP wagon early before it becomes back-logged like everything else.  My VSO was all for this too.

I will keep you posted on how this goes.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

"I just got a copy of my decision from my VSO today.  Once again, the letter completely ignored my request for a back date.  Instead they acted as if I had requested an increase and denied that.  I was already rated at the maximum for my skin condition.  "

Preposterous- then again they pulled all sorts of BS on with 2 of my CUE claims.


"So today, I filed a NOD and filed the Opt-in for RAMP.  I have selected the Higher-Level Review with the "informal conference" which could increase the length of time for my RAMP decision.  However, I don't want any surprises.  But as long as I was filing RAMP for the skin disease, I added a request for an earlier effective date for my upper peripheral neuropathy. "

That's good but you can also file a CUE on  their most recent denial, regarding the back date separate from the NOD. It would be what I call a GCY VA CUE ( GCY (Go CUE Yourself VA) but I really mean it is a CUE filed within the appeal period.

If your rep never heard of that-and comes here I will show him what I mean.

Unfortunately I had asked former Sec Shulkin to prepare a fast letter, and explained this tactic to him. Maybe the next VA Secretary will do something about it.

VA fought every single claim I filed but has never questioned the premise of my CUEs ,filed within the appeal period. 2 other vets here had success with this GCY tactic.


My HBP Cue is here somewhere.

I had filed the claim under 1151. The day after I got the denial ( because they again refused to read my evidence_ a 2 page report dated 1997 from VA Central Office)

I filed a CUE against them. They reversed and awarded in mere weeks.

They had violated 38 CFR 4.6 -my Favorite regulation.

I didnt need to file a NOD.

The VA hates it when we call them on a legal error-it shows they cannot outsmart us.

My SMC CUES were another story-they took years to award at the RO Level.

Literacy is apparenty not a job requirement at the VAROs.


Edited by Berta

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thanks!  I am printing out 38 CFR 4.6 - Evaluation of evidence to have in front of me when I talk to the RAMP decision maker.  That's a keeper.

§ 4.6 Evaluation of evidence. The element of the weight to be accorded the character of the veteran’s service is but one factor entering into the considerations of the rating boards in arriving at determinations of the evaluation of disability. Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

When I was in Military School (AMU) I had to take a course on AmerIndian warfare-

It was taught by a retired Lt Colonel and that is where I got the little motto at the bottom of my posts.

The VA will use the regs against us if they can (they even tried to make up a regulation to deny my SMC CUE claim)

But sometimes we sure can use their own regulations against them! 

The regulations are  often a great  weapon we have against their War of the Words!



When thousands of Americans faced annihilation in the 1800s Chief

Osceola's response to his people, the Seminoles, was

simply "They(the US Army)have guns, but so do we."

Sameo to us -They (VA) have 38 CFR ,38 USC, and M21-1- but so do we






Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

There may be something here that was overlooked and not discussed.  Again and again, when 38 CFR 3.156 b or 38 cfr 3.156 c can be used, I dont recommend raising the level of review to CUE, when a simple reopening keeps the benefit of the doubt in your favor.  

Read your decisions.  Did they cite the exam which (failed to state) your meds in the decison as "evidence"?  

If they did NOT cite this medical exam, then you should be able to resumbit it and get it reopened for an earlier effecitive date (3.156b), if your claim is pending (in some type of appeals).  

You dont want to use a sledge hammer to swat flies..you use a fly swatter or rolled up newspaper.  Cue is like a sledge hammer, and, while effective, look what the sledge would do to your wood, (standard of review) first.  

 A "wild swing" at Cue will likely do more damage than it fixes.  Now, a precisely driven CUE can effect a home run.  

You need to cite the regulations VA violated..and which decision and where..cite where there was an error.  You also have to show how the error was outcome determinative, and undebatable, and incosistent with regulations at the time.  The Cue sledge will work, but not when swung wildly.  

Edited by broncovet

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Broncovet -

Did you read my previous post mentioned above?

I have reopened this claim 7 or 8 times.  The first time I claimed it, my C&P examiners left my medications, essential for 60% rating, off the exam although I listed them 4 times.  I complained about the exam and the VA reopened again. This time they denied my claim saying I did not go to an exam that was never examined (and I have that in writing).  Reopened again and I was scheduled for a new skin exam - when I arrived I found that someone at VA had opened a claim for increase on my left hand and that was all the examiner could look at.  I was denied again.  I opened it again and was denied because the VA said I used topical medication which was not systemic whereas nowhere in my records does it mention topical medication.  Then I had my dermatologist do a DBQ and I was finally awarded 60% for my skin condition, but my request for a back date was not addressed.  I reopened the claim again for the back date and it was denied because VA said Title 38 did not consider my medication to be systemic in 2009 but it was systemic in 2017 due to a policy change.  I reopened the claim again pointing out that the skin law in Title 38 for my claim had not changed since 2002 and they could not decide CUE based on policy change; it had to be based on law.  My claim was reopened again, and the VA treated it as an increase instead of a request for an earlier effective date, sending me to yet another exam.    This was made even more ridiculous since I already have the maximum rating for the condition.

I have cited the regulation every time I did this.  I also cited two cases decided at the US court of veteran appeals that supported my claim (see my other post mentioned above.).  Every time, the VA  ignored my request for an earlier effective date and treated my claim as an increase, or ignored my medications, or gave me the wrong exam, or listed the wrong medication, or did not follow the law.  Believe me, I have read every decision carefully, along with my VSO.  We are both shaking our heads over how ignorant the examiners are, or they think I must be.  My VSO said he has learned more about CUE from me than he learned in a 2-week class he had to sit through.

I have read a dozen cases where veterans with the same skin condition on the same medicine have won their cases at the BVA level.  That is why the policy in MR21-1 was changed in 2015 - too many VAROs were making errors in interpretation of the law, which is the foundation of CUE.

I agree with Berta - the raters at the regional office cannot read.  


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

    • Tinnitus comes in two forms: subjective and objective. In subjective tinnitus, only the sufferer will hear the ringing in their own ears. In objective tinnitus, the sound can be heard by a doctor who is examining the ear canals. Objective tinnitus is extremely rare, while subjective tinnitus is by far the most common form of the disorder.

      The sounds of tinnitus may vary with the person experiencing it. Some will hear a ringing, while others will hear a buzzing. At times people may hear a chirping or whistling sound. These sounds may be constant or intermittent. They may also vary in volume and are generally more obtrusive when the sufferer is in a quiet environment. Many tinnitus sufferers find their symptoms are at their worst when they’re trying to fall asleep.

        • Like
    • Precedent Setting CAVC cases cited in the M21-1
      A couple months back before I received my decision I started preparing for the appeal I knew I would be filing.  That is how little faith I had in the VA caring about we the veteran. 

      One of the things I did is I went through the entire M21-1 and documented every CAVC precedent case that the VA cited. I did this because I wanted to see what the rater was seeing.  I could not understand for the life of me why so many obviously bad decisions were being handed down.  I think the bottom line is that the wrong type of people are hired as raters.  I think raters should have some kind of legal background.  They do not need to be lawyers but I think paralegals would be a good idea.

      There have been more than 3500 precedent setting decisions from the CAVC since 1989.  Now we need to concede that all of them are not favorable to the veteran but I have learned that in a lot of cases even though the veteran lost a case it some rules were established that assisted other veterans.

      The document I created has about 200 or so decisions cited in the M21-1.   Considering the fact that there are more than 3500 precedent cases out there I think it is safe to assume the VA purposely left out decisions that would make it almost impossible to deny veteran claims.  Case in point. I know of 14 precedent setting decisions that state the VA cannot ignore or give no weight to outside doctors without providing valid medical reasons as to why.  Most of these decision are not cited by the M21.

      It is important that we do our due diligence to make sure we do not get screwed.  I think the M21-1 is incomplete because there is too much information we veterans are finding on our own to get the benefits we deserve

      M21-1 Precedent setting decisions .docx
        • Thanks
        • Like
      • 5 replies
    • Any one heard of this , I filed a claim for this secondary to hypertension, I had a echo cardiogram, that stated the diagnosis was this heart disease. my question is what is the rating for this. attached is the Echo.

      • 7 replies
    • Need your support - T-shirts Available - Please buy a mug or a membership
      if you have been thinking about subscribing to an ad-free forum or buying a mug now would a very helpful time to do that.

      Thank you for your support
      • 18 replies
    • OK everyone thanks for all the advice I need your help I called VSO complained about length of time on Wednesday of this week today I checked my E benefits and my ratings are in for my ankles that they were denying me 10% for each bilateral which makes 21% I was originally 80% now they’re still saying I’m 80% 

      I’m 50% pes planus 30% migraine headaches 20% lumbar 10% tinnitus and now bilateral 21% so 10% left and right ankle Can someone else please do the math because I come up with 86% which makes me 90 what am I missing please help and thank you
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines