Need the big wigs help again

[Mr cue]

https://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/tag/131-32-2011-38-cfr-3-157b-informal-claim-claim-defined/

 

Ok the bva citation number is 0928705

Ok I believe they should have iffer a smc claim when I got my award it was never done.

I had lost of use of hand &elbow

Which is m1\2 rating.

 

[Berta]

Here is the Remand:

https://www.va.gov/vetapp09/files4/0928705.txt

In part:

":4.  The October 2007 claim of CUE in the June 1994 decision 
addresses issues currently pending on appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.  The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the denial 
of service connection for a left elbow disability is 
dismissed as no justiciable case or controversy is before the 
Board at this time.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West 
2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4, 20.101, 20.200 (2008).

2.  The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the 
assignment of an initial 10 percent rating for a left neck 
muscle strain is dismissed as no justiciable case or 
controversy is before the Board at this time.  38 U.S.C.A. 
§§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4, 
20.101, 20.200 (2008)."

And:

"ORDER

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision granting 
service connection for a muscle strain of the left neck, 
rated 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5233, contains CUE is 
dismissed.

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision denying 
service connection for a left elbow disability contains CUE 
is dismissed.

REMAND

As was discussed above, the Veteran has timely perfected 
appeals with regard to the issues of service connection for a 
left elbow disability and initial evaluation of a left neck 
muscle strain.

During the pendency of these appeals, the VCAA was enacted.  
VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in 
substantiating a claim for VA benefits.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 
5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 
3.159 and 3.326(a).  Adequate notice and assistance has not 
been afforded the Veteran under the VCAA with regard to 
either claim, and hence remand is required. 

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's 
docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2008).  Expedited 
handling is requested.)

1.  Provide the Veteran with the notice 
required under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 
38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), as well as Court 
precedent, to include Dingess v. 
Nicholson, 
19 Vet. App. 473 (2006) (regarding notice 
of assignment of effective dates and 
disability evaluations).

2.  The AMC/RO should specifically request 
private medical records regarding 
treatment of the left elbow and arm 
disability from the time of injury to 
service, or proper releases to allow VA to 
obtain such on the Veteran's behalf.  The 
RO should review the claims file to ensure 
that all the foregoing requested 
development is completed, and arrange for 
any additional development indicated, to 
include provision of VA examinations.

3.  The RO should then readjudicate the 
claims on appeal.  If any benefit sought 
remains denied, the RO should issue an 
appropriate SSOC and provide the Veteran 
and his representative the requisite time 
period to respond.  The case should then be 
returned to the Board for further appellate 
review, if otherwise in order.  No action 
is required of the appellant unless he is 
notified.  "

Can you tell us what service connected disabilities you have now and what is the rating for each one?

[Mr cue]

4 minutes ago, Berta said:

Here is the Remand:

https://www.va.gov/vetapp09/files4/0928705.txt

In part:

":4.  The October 2007 claim of CUE in the June 1994 decision 
addresses issues currently pending on appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.  The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the denial 
of service connection for a left elbow disability is 
dismissed as no justiciable case or controversy is before the 
Board at this time.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West 
2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4, 20.101, 20.200 (2008).

2.  The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the 
assignment of an initial 10 percent rating for a left neck 
muscle strain is dismissed as no justiciable case or 
controversy is before the Board at this time.  38 U.S.C.A. 
§§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4, 
20.101, 20.200 (2008)."

And:

"ORDER

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision granting 
service connection for a muscle strain of the left neck, 
rated 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5233, contains CUE is 
dismissed.

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision denying 
service connection for a left elbow disability contains CUE 
is dismissed.

REMAND

As was discussed above, the Veteran has timely perfected 
appeals with regard to the issues of service connection for a 
left elbow disability and initial evaluation of a left neck 
muscle strain.

During the pendency of these appeals, the VCAA was enacted.  
VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in 
substantiating a claim for VA benefits.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 
5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 
3.159 and 3.326(a).  Adequate notice and assistance has not 
been afforded the Veteran under the VCAA with regard to 
either claim, and hence remand is required. 

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's 
docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2008).  Expedited 
handling is requested.)

1.  Provide the Veteran with the notice 
required under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 
38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), as well as Court 
precedent, to include Dingess v. 
Nicholson, 
19 Vet. App. 473 (2006) (regarding notice 
of assignment of effective dates and 
disability evaluations).

2.  The AMC/RO should specifically request 
private medical records regarding 
treatment of the left elbow and arm 
disability from the time of injury to 
service, or proper releases to allow VA to 
obtain such on the Veteran's behalf.  The 
RO should review the claims file to ensure 
that all the foregoing requested 
development is completed, and arrange for 
any additional development indicated, to 
include provision of VA examinations.

3.  The RO should then readjudicate the 
claims on appeal.  If any benefit sought 
remains denied, the RO should issue an 
appropriate SSOC and provide the Veteran 
and his representative the requisite time 
period to respond.  The case should then be 
returned to the Board for further appellate 
review, if otherwise in order.  No action 
is required of the appellant unless he is 
notified.  "

Can you tell us what service connected disabilities you have now and what is the rating for each one?

4 minutes ago, Berta said:

Here is the Remand:

https://www.va.gov/vetapp09/files4/0928705.txt

In part:

":4.  The October 2007 claim of CUE in the June 1994 decision 
addresses issues currently pending on appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.  The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the denial 
of service connection for a left elbow disability is 
dismissed as no justiciable case or controversy is before the 
Board at this time.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West 
2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4, 20.101, 20.200 (2008).

2.  The Veteran's appeal as to the issue of CUE in the 
assignment of an initial 10 percent rating for a left neck 
muscle strain is dismissed as no justiciable case or 
controversy is before the Board at this time.  38 U.S.C.A. 
§§ 5109A, 7104, 7105 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 19.4, 
20.101, 20.200 (2008)."

And:

"ORDER

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision granting 
service connection for a muscle strain of the left neck, 
rated 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5233, contains CUE is 
dismissed.

The question of whether a June 1994 rating decision denying 
service connection for a left elbow disability contains CUE 
is dismissed.

REMAND

As was discussed above, the Veteran has timely perfected 
appeals with regard to the issues of service connection for a 
left elbow disability and initial evaluation of a left neck 
muscle strain.

During the pendency of these appeals, the VCAA was enacted.  
VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in 
substantiating a claim for VA benefits.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 
5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 
3.159 and 3.326(a).  Adequate notice and assistance has not 
been afforded the Veteran under the VCAA with regard to 
either claim, and hence remand is required. 

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

(Please note, this appeal has been advanced on the Board's 
docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2008).  Expedited 
handling is requested.)

1.  Provide the Veteran with the notice 
required under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 
38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), as well as Court 
precedent, to include Dingess v. 
Nicholson, 
19 Vet. App. 473 (2006) (regarding notice 
of assignment of effective dates and 
disability evaluations).

2.  The AMC/RO should specifically request 
private medical records regarding 
treatment of the left elbow and arm 
disability from the time of injury to 
service, or proper releases to allow VA to 
obtain such on the Veteran's behalf.  The 
RO should review the claims file to ensure 
that all the foregoing requested 
development is completed, and arrange for 
any additional development indicated, to 
include provision of VA examinations.

3.  The RO should then readjudicate the 
claims on appeal.  If any benefit sought 
remains denied, the RO should issue an 
appropriate SSOC and provide the Veteran 
and his representative the requisite time 
period to respond.  The case should then be 
returned to the Board for further appellate 
review, if otherwise in order.  No action 
is required of the appellant unless he is 
notified.  "

Can you tell us what service connected disabilities you have now and what is the rating for each one?

 After every thing was done I was iu 60% ivds neck& 20% for a facture elbow with parthisis of the hand.

Now I find about smc claims I should of got a k for my loss of use of hand.

I wish i could get the court decision on worldpress to show.

[Berta]

Gee, I lost my reply yulookin' I do remember you now.

I dont understand this:

"i was granted 60% and iu 2001 by the dro."

Is the IU solely for the 60% condition?

[Mr cue]

That is the old case I won they grant. iu because I hadnt work. But they stage rate me for the neck 20%1993 till 2001 which was bull

 

Let it go to court that is the decision on WordPress if some one can show that maybe u will understand better. Plus I feel it may other

[Mr cue]

HesterA_10-3072.pdf this is the court case.

I am now fight for smc and I believe I am goin to get it back till 1993. This is the new fight.

I wasn't aware an of smc an it should have been look at. Never done that a cue

The claim should have been iffer when I was grant iu by cfr. An every iu or 100% granted should have a denial on the decision for smc if not fight for your date.

If u look u Can see I have loss of use of hand and elbow. Which is m1/2.

Now I would get a smc I for a&a 

If u quilfy for two different smc I or higher I are to get r1 by cfr.

I just post the smc handbook take a look it might help some one

 

 

[63SIERRA]

what regulation in 38cfr says that SMC should be inferred when winning a TDIU claim.