Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

Top 10 VA Disability Claims Articles

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Coding Error

Rate this question

RBP

Asked by RBP,

 Share

Question

RBP Newbie

RBP

Posted
Posted

currently rated at 70% SC ...I was granted IU  effective Sept 2017 won on appeal  … But due to a coding error  the increase has not applied.. I was advised the coding error has been  corrected and closed out in the beginning of OCT 2018   and that it is in its final stages(checking for errors on the decision) can anyone offer advice as it relates to  the turn around time  before benefits are applied?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Answers 2
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

2 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
vetquest Veteran

vetquest

Posted
Posted

If there was a coding error and it has been corrected it should become effecitive in your next months' check.  I had the same thing happen to me several years ago and once the V.A. was notified they corrected the error and I got my updated pay the next month.  But, we all know the V.A. and they might just find a way to muck this all up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 0
Berta

Berta

Posted
Posted

" I was advised the coding error has been  corrected and closed out in the beginning of OCT 2018"

GREAT! I wrote to former Secretary Shulkin some years ago about two specific changes , as an advocate, I felt were needed to M21-1MR.

A nice call from his office revealed they had put my suggestions into the Modernization Act, implementing M21-1 MR- n 2015 and I just linked a new member here to one of those changes which could help him- and forgot what the other change was - you reminded me.

My suggestion ( and I gave any examples for this from my personal experience to the Sec) is that CUE claims are increasing the backlog and many if not most of them are as valid as all of my CUE claims were.

I suggested that VAROs should have a well versed claims expert to give decisions  a final checkover to see if they contain any legal errors that can and should be corrected while the claim is still with the RO.

It takes me mere minutes here to determine, in some posts here, if the VA has comitted a CUE, when the veteran attaches their  actual decision. The minimal time spent by an experienced VARO reviewer to do this, before the decision goes out, would help stave off the backlog because the historic info at the BVA web site (since 1992)reveals that more and more vets are filing valid CUE claims- and these are based on VA legal errors that should not have happened in the first place at the VARO level.

The M21-1MR changed that-a senior RO claims person is supposed to rview all their decisions for CUE- however, I know that does not happen as much as it should yet vets here here have noted that RO has caught errors (wich holds up the award but is far better that not even addressing the CUE at the RO level.

You took the bull by the horns and told them of the coding error- I commend you-the VA can fix some errors in  a heartbeat-otherswise  a legal error ,if not picked up by the RO or by the clamant themselves, (been there done that myself)

will hinder the claim .

or cause a continuous detrimental $$$$ affect to the claimant.

 

 

 

 

   

GRADUATE ! Nov 2nd 2007 American Military University !

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to question listing


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!

  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Lebro
      Lebro earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      stuart55
      stuart55 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      stuart55
      stuart55 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      Lebro
      Lebro earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      Sparklinger
      Sparklinger earned a badge
      First Post

  • Our picks

    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection

      Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection

      Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,

      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
      Tbird

      Picked By

      Tbird,

    • Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?

      Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,

      Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
      yellowrose

      Picked By

      yellowrose,

    • Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court

      broncovet posted a post in a topic,

      VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
      Lemuel

      Picked By

      Lemuel,

    • Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.

      broncovet posted an answer to a question,

      Welcome to hadit!  

          There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not.  Try reading this:

      https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/

         However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.  

         When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait!  Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?"  Not once.  Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.  

          However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.  

      That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot.  There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.  

      Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.  

          Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344

       
      Lemuel

      Picked By

      Lemuel,

    • Post in What is the DIC timeline?

      broncovet posted an answer to a question,

      Good question.   

          Maybe I can clear it up.  

          The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more.  (my paraphrase).  

      More here:

      Source:

      https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/

      NOTE:   TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY.  This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond.    If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much. 
      Lemuel

      Picked By

      Lemuel,
    View All
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use

  I accept