first filed & EED?

[Buck52]

I realize this has been Answered 100 times

But I still do not understand it.

If Veteran files HIS FIRST CLAIM IN  Feb1998  claim and is denied and NOD within a year  Aug 1998 and gets a  Service Connection but at 0%    ok then in 1999 files  a  claim  as reopen for increase and is awarded 50% for the same claim he filed back in 1998  then  a year later he files for increase on the 50% in 2002/2003 and is Awarded 90% INFEERED TDIU P&T NO FUTURE EXAMS  DISABILITY CHRONIC IN NATURE

OK what would be the Veterans EED? FOR THE 20 YEAR PROTECTION RULE?

  Would VA go back to the 1998 date the claim was first filed?  or go back to the date the 50% was increase to the 90% and was Inferred the IU in 2002/2003?

 

Thanks in Advance.

[broncovet]

Buck

    You posted:

Quote

I was 50% at the time I got the 40%increase which brought my rating up to 90% then another 10% for tinnitus  but was not enough for the 100% scheduler..so that made me at 90% combined.   trickey trickey..why didn't they go ahead and give the 10% for tinnitus at the time I was granted the 40%increase?  then that would have gave me 100%  but they didn;t do it like that  they said my 40%was increase in June 2003/and the tinnitus was awarded id FEB 2001  So that made me have the tinnitus first before the 40%increase to the 90%combined

I dont think so, that is, assuming I understand this.  Your ratings "combine", using the largest percentage first, second largest, and so on.  It would not matter if the 10 percent were first or last, it matters the percentages and how they combine.  So, it would not have mattered if they gave you the 10 percent for tinnitus from the get go, or 10 percent 10 years later..they combine them to form the percenatages you get paid for.  

[broncovet]

Buck, you posted:

Quote

A good Attorney would have a field day with this...but they want what I don't have and that's the green stuff (Money)

Actually, no.  You can think of this as half full or half empty.  If you are unable to accomplish this on your own, then the attorney "gets" you 80 percent more money.  You are not "losing" 20 percent, you are getting 80 percent more.  Think of the big picture.  

IF YOU CAN DO THIS ON YOUR OWN, well then do it.  I agree its tricky, and that is why I hired an attorney...3 times!!!!!!!

1.  I hired NVLSP.   Cost: Zero.  

2.  I hired Julie Glover.  (To appeal a CAVC claim).  She got a remand, and EAJA paid the attorney fees.  However, upon remand, (she got a Voc Rehab IMO, and PAID FOR IT UP FRONT), we wont tdiu of about 35,000 retro.  Since she had already received EAJA fees, she can not collect attorney fees twice..once from EAJA and once from me.  However, the 20 percent of the retro was 7000, after deducting the 6000 she got in EAJA fees, I paid $1000 plus the IMO.  

I would not have been able to afford the IMO, she knew that and got it for me.  Net cost:  1000, but I still got 34,000 more than I had before!!   

3.  Chris Attig.  Im currently in appeals at the CAVC, and there is "0" risk to me.  If he loses, we can still appeal to the Federal circuit, but if we win, then EAJA pays the fees.  

      Im telling you, the reason people hire attorney's is they MAKE THEM MONEY.  No other reason.  If you got a couple years more retro, you would be thousands ahead of where you are now.  

     Some people are good enough to be their own attorney.  I have actually done so, and filed a writ of mandamus at the CAVC!  It does take a lot of skills and persistence.  

Bottom line:  Dont fret about the 20 percent you wont get, but rejoice in the 80 percent you do get!!!  

[Buck52]

Here is my Rating Decision letter says  that was dated 4/12/99

Decision

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted with an evaluation of 0%  precent

effective 4/22/1998 .....>so service connection goes back to the 1998 date when I first filed this claim.

 

ok,  Here is what it says on a Rating Decision letter dated  June 27th 2003 ...>WORD PER WORD. From my R.O.

1.Service connection for tinnitus is granted with an evaluation of 10 percent effective

Dec 10,2002

2.Entitlement to Individual unemploybility is granted effective Dec 10,2002

3.Evaluation of bilateral hearing loss which is currently 50 percent disabling,is increased to 90 percent, effective March 17,2003

Ok here is a update on all my Associated Claims   dated 2/05/2016

Jurisdiction :New Claims Received  10/19/ 2015

6100             Bilateral Hearing Loss, service connection Vietnam Era, Incurred

                    50% from 4/22/1998  90% from 03/17/2003

 

9411          Posttraumatic Stress Diaorder ,Service connection ,Vietnam Era ,incurred

                   static disability  70%from 10/02/2015

 

6260         Tinnitus , Service Connected Vietnam Era, Incurred.

                  10%from 12/10/2002

 

SPECIAL MONTHLY COMPENSATION 

S-1 Entitled special monthly compensation  under 38 U.S.C.1114  subsection  (s) IU applies  under 38CFR 3.350 (i)) on account of bilateral hearing loss a single disability upon which  total individual unemployability rating is based and additional  service connected  disability  of posttraumatic stress disorder, independently  rated 60% or more from 10/02/2015

SMC K  E.D. Awarded service connected at 0% and paid in addition to any S.C. Disability's

 

I have the records on most all my Appeals and NOD's ect,,ect,, from when I first filed for the Hearing loss claim. in O4/22/1998.

[broncovet]

You posted:

Quote

 

Here is my Rating Decision letter says  that was dated 4/12/99

Decision

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted with an evaluation of 0%  precent

effective 4/22/1998 .....>so service connection goes back to the 1998 date when I first filed this claim.

 

OK, you are 0 percent effective 4/22/08.  

Next, you posted:

Quote

 

1.Service connection for tinnitus is granted with an evaluation of 10 percent effective

Dec 10,2002

2.Entitlement to Individual unemploybility is granted effective Dec 10,2002

3.Evaluation of bilateral hearing loss which is currently 50 percent disabling,is increased to 90 percent, effective March 17,2003

 

Ok, so in 2002 you were increased from 0 percent to those posted above, which includes TDIU.  Did you appeal this decision's effective date(s)?  OR, did you file "new and material evidence" to support a higher evaluation within a year?  (That is, is 1999.  You should check to see if you sent new evidence IN the appeal period. You could argue this "reopened" the 1998 claim and increased it, thus your effective date should be 1998. )

 

This is confusing:

 

Quote

 

Bilateral Hearing Loss, service connection Vietnam Era, Incurred

                    50% from 4/22/1998  90% from 03/17/2003

 

The effective dates are inconsistent with those you posted, above.  

[broncovet]

The last part suggests maybe you got a decision that you either forgot about or did not know about, granting an increase.  

[Buck52]

Exactly they are confusing 

I HAVE THESE RECORDS WITH DIFFERENT DATES.

I just posted what I have on Record.