Odd CUE question

[Berta]

I mentioned before that I filed 3 CUEs recently ( one of them was on 2 phone calls from the Director of my VARO) I dont know how that will be handled but it will be fun.

I am working on 2 CUEs in a different decision, and I want to file a third CUE within it-because it appears that they made a medical statement that indicated they cannot read- what's new.

They took a VACO report and completely disregarded and manpulated  what it said. This was on the HBP 1151 claim I had, denied March 2015, then awarded in April 2015 due my immediate  CUE , probably sent as an IRIS complaint as well as a GCY VA CUE (GoCueYourself VA) in the appellate period.

The medical statements they made could not have come from a doctor- they are absurd. And I did win the claim. But they denied accrued under 1151.That involved violation of 38 CFR 4.6-and VA pres op 08-97.

And the retro date they used is wrong by 4 years.

I guess my question is, has anyone ever filed a successful CUE because no VA  medical professional opined on their well established  medical  evidence? -

I guess I should just focus on the award letter for the CUEs in that, but maybe I will throw in another CUE due to their inability to read. ???

That will be 6 CUEs in all. 

Any thoughts?

 

 

 

 

 

[broncovet]

I have only filed one CUE, and did not get a good result, in no small part because I did not know what I was doing in regard to CUE.  

I alleged the Varo erred by not considering a depression claim in 2004....but I was not even sure to which decision to attach the CUE to, since it was repeated by the VARO decision in 2002, the 2004 bva decision, and the 2005 VARO decision which supposedly implemented the 2004 board decision.  

I realized I did not plead Cue "with specificity" arguing the legal principal to which the VA erred.  Later, Im not sure there was a legal principal....the VA does not have to adjuticate all claims at the same time, and they dont have to call the ones they dont adjuticate "deferred".  

For me, however, I dont really care which route I fly to get benefits:  CUE, NOD, BVA, CAVC, Writ, DRO, RAMP, etc...

I have often found that my best "entitlement theory" was usually rejected and, instead, I got benefits via a totally different entitlement theory, and they were sometimes better for me than the theory I  proposed.  

For that reason, I often try "the spaghetti" method...throw it all on the wall and see what sticks.  (If you did not know this, at least one cook said you could tell if spagetti was cooked by "throwing it at the wall" and see if it sticks".)

At least part of the reason this happens is because VA law is in constant flux.  There may be a case in the next 4 or 5 years that "decides" your entitlement theory, either validating it, or rendering it unusable.  As Hawkeye once said, "doctors see the future, just like the rest of us do...we wait until it happens."  

Berta, you have had good luck with your CUE"S.  Most of the attorney's I spoke with would rather stir up a hornets nest bare handed, then send in a CUE or a WRIT.  I have not had one attorney, in 4 trips to the CAVC, ever suggest or file a CUE.  Each dismissed the cue idea.  

[Berta]

Thanks Broncovet- I filed a IRIS complaint. They manipulated a VA Central report that the GC ordered.

not the report ityself- it is just that they tried to negate everything in it- I dont even think a VA doctor wrote the medical review.It isn't even listed as evidence.

It will be very interesting to see what happens next----I did win this claim but I am sick and tired of the crap they have pulled on me.

If I learn of the same type of crap here from any other surviving spouses, it would be a good way to start a Class Action against them.

Unfortunately may survivors dont even recognise when the VA commits a CUE.And even if they have a rep or VSO- that only means more work for the rep or VSO so they probably dont even advise filing CUE.

I have never filed a CUE claim that could not succeed.

But I sure dont want these next CUEs to sit at my VARO for years like the 2003-2004 CUEs did-

Two people at my VARO who I named -are going to have a knot in their underwear of my complaint.I am sending  it also to Secretary Wilkie. along with copies of all of my recent CUE claims and requesting from him some Accountability from a VARO who employs illterates and has a Director who does not know basic VA 101.

I hated the idea of even dealing with them again---- but I feel better that I did.

I need to get a tape recorder for my phone. In case they want to try to pull some BS over the phone with me again.I guess amazon has tape recorders for phone calls.

 

 

 

 

[broncovet]

I, too, have had VA employees (and VSO's) lie to me.  When I was in the military, I was carefull not to speak anything but the truth   After Bill Clinton,  the truth, or lack thereof, does not seem to matter anymore.  

Berta, I would LOVE to have your legal skills.  

In short, here is what happened.  

Based on this statement, (by Secretary of the Treasury, Paulson):

Quote

On August 10, 2008, Secretary Paulson told NBC's Meet the Press that he had no plans to inject any capital into Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.^[27] On September 7, 2008, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went into conservatorship.^[28]

Source:  Wikipedia Hank Paulsen.  

Three weeks after Paulson said that the government would not intervene in Fannie Mae, (he) put them into governemt conservatorship.  Worse, the "net worth sweep" instigated in the Obama era "swept" 100 percent of fannie mae profits into the treasury.   Even tho so called "bailout funds" have been completely repaid by shareholders, the government continues to take "all" the shareholder profits.  

Investors Unite is a group of fannie investors trying to stop the government from confiscating all of our profits.  We have been unsuccessful even in the  past 10 years.  

https://investorsunite.org/

As a Veteran, and Fannie Mae Investor, I would not have beleived that the government could simply "take" shareholders money and do so indefinately.  

Now that is a cue if I ever saw one.