Is this claim CUE worthy

[Wmfromga]

In a nutshell, won an appeal in 14 granting service connection for post military hysterectomy based on in service symptoms and medical service record.  Service connection granted back to 07.   Filed CUE RAMP in June of this year for earlier service connection.  This was based on original denial in 1996 for " no gynecological pathology diagnosed".   I submitted two pieces of medical records that diagnosed displaced uterus.  Am I reaching  in asking for the 30% for displaced uterus with marked disturbances or would hysterectomy become secondary to displaced uterus.  Decision is pending approval now.  Only info sent from Va was a development letter.

Rated Disabilities

Disability	Rating	Decision	Related To	Effective Date
back aches		Not Service Connected
ear infections with wax buildup		Not Service Connected
total abdominal hysterectomy (also claimed as painful menstrual cramps)	50%	Service Connected		09/21/2007
anterior cruciate ligament deficiency , left knee with patellofemoral pain and left knee strain	10%	Service Connected		03/30/1996
foot problems		Not Service Connected
anterior cruciate ligament deficiency right knee with patellofemoral pain and right knee strain (disability severance pay)	10%	Service Connected		03/30/1996
Degenerative disease, right knee	10%	Service Connected		02/28/2007
tendonitis to the right forearm and wrist	10%	Service Connected		03/30/1996
painful menstrual cramps, also claimed as total abdominal hysterectomy		Not Service Connected

Pending Disabilities

Disability	Submitted	Type	Actions
Effective Date Of Compensation For Total Abdominal Hysterectomy (also Claimed As Painful Menstrual Cramps) Was A Clear And Unmistakable Error.	06/19/2018	REP

[Navy4life]

Very little information to even give you an answer.  Though they are often referred to as “CUE claims,” CUEs are not actually claims. Rather, CUE is used as shorthand for “a request for revision based on clear and unmistakable error.” Essentially, CUEs are a way for you to attack a final decision from the VA.

Broncovet posted a very good post in here:

 

Remember once you file a CUE, you can never file one again regarding the claim you filed the CUE.

[Berta]

"Remember once you file a CUE, you can never file one again regarding the claim you filed the CUE."

As a successful CUErino- I must state that is not true.

Even the BVA has made that point-

If the BVA denies a CUE claim, they often state that the claimant is not prejudiced by the denal and can file another CUE-

I posted their exact words here Many times-

Many claimanants do Not read the extensive info here on CUE  or search the net for  CUE  or 38 USC 5109, and they do not file claims based specifically on the CUE criteria.

I have 3 CUEs pending on a past CUE  Award .I have filed many and never lost one yet.

"Remember once you file a CUE, you can never file one again regarding the claim you filed the CUE."

That has become one of the stupid mantras of vet reps and VSO , because they either do not have a Clue on CUE or they do, but are too lazy to help the vet file one.

Reps are still even telling widows/widowers  :"the claims died with the Vet"- that was the first thing the DAV told me years ago-and the rep wanted to get off the phone....but I told him 'wait a minute- 38 USC says I can resurrect those claims'-and I did.

If you search CUE Berta at the hadit search 10 pages of my posts on CUE will pop up and that is only on the new board, since 2005.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Berta

[Navy4life]

21 minutes ago, Navy4life said:

Very little information to even give you an answer.  Though they are often referred to as “CUE claims,” CUEs are not actually claims. Rather, CUE is used as shorthand for “a request for revision based on clear and unmistakable error.” Essentially, CUEs are a way for you to attack a final decision from the VA.

Broncovet posted a very good post in here:

 

Remember once you file a CUE, you can never file one again regarding the claim you filed the CUE.

Berta;

So what does this mean in the 3.9 CFR?

CUE WARNING:

A veteran can only claim CUE one time for each decision. This means that if a claimant files a CUE claim and the VA finds that the claim does not contain the required level of detail, that CUE claim is lost forever.

[Berta]

Navy4Life-please do not think I am being critical  with you-I know your post here is meant to help and not to hurt-

https://www.va.gov/vetapp18/files9/1829889.txt

and 

https://www.va.gov/vetapp17/files2/1708211.txt

show what I mean. ( I am not the same "Simmons" in the case they cite)

I hesitate to correct anyone here because it often ends p[ in an argument- so I hold back , but definitely needed to correct you-

but you are definitely right that there is not enough here to even wonder if theis vet has a valid CUE .

I googled 3.9 CFR  and nothing popped up that referred to CUE- 

Cue is within Title 38 USC and 38 CFR .

 

[Berta]

to add- the knowledge I got on CUE came mainly from studying BVA CUEs that were awarded and those that were denied, since BVA came on line Also I purchased the VBM from NVLSP annually since 1991 and their info on CUE has been mentioned here as well.

You might be refrring to this regulation-

The relevant law provides that a "Motion to Revise" a Board decision must set forth clearly and specifically the alleged CUE of fact or law in the Board decision, the legal or factual basis for such allegations, and why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error.  Non-specific allegations of failure to follow regulations or failure to give due process, or any other general, non-specific allegations of error, are insufficient to satisfy the requirement of the previous sentence.  Motions which fail to comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph shall be dismissed without prejudice to refiling.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1404 .

Under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1409 (c), the Board's regulations specify that a moving party has only one opportunity to challenge a Board decision based on CUE.  A claimant is allowed only one request for revision based on CUE for each Board decision, even if a claimant's second request for revision based on CUE attempts to raise a different theory of CUE.  There is a difference between a Board decision and RO decisions with respect to CUE claims.  The regulations governing CUE challenges to finality of RO decisions do not limit the number of times a claimant may raise a CUE claim as to a specific RO decision.  38 U.S.C. § 5109A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105; Andrews v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  In contrast, the regulation limits each claimant to one challenge to the finality of each Board decision.  Hillyard v. Shinseki, 695 F.3d 1257, 1258 (2012). 

"The relevant law provides that a "Motion to Revise" a Board decision must set forth clearly and specifically the alleged CUE of fact or law in the Board decision, the legal or factual basis for such allegations, and why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error.  Non-specific allegations of failure to follow regulations or failure to give due process, or any other general, non-specific allegations of error, are insufficient to satisfy the requirement of the previous sentence.  Motions which fail to comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph shall be dismissed without prejudice to refiling.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1404 .

Under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1409 (c), the Board's regulations specify that a moving party has only one opportunity to challenge a Board decision based on CUE.  A claimant is allowed only one request for revision based on CUE for each Board decision, even if a claimant's second request for revision based on CUE attempts to raise a different theory of CUE.  There is a difference between a Board decision and RO decisions with respect to CUE claims.  The regulations governing CUE challenges to finality of RO decisions do not limit the number of times a claimant may raise a CUE claim as to a specific RO decision.  38 U.S.C. § 5109A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105; Andrews v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Andre v. Principi, 301 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2002).  In contrast, the regulation limits each claimant to one challenge to the finality of each Board decision.  Hillyard v. Shinseki, 695 F.3d 1257, 1258 (2012). "

https://www.va.gov/vetapp18/files9/1829889.txt

But I did not get the impression this was regarding a CUE at the BVA-

as a Motion to be filed with the Board to revise due to Clear and Unmistakable error, etc. 

VARO decisions ( as I well know) can be CUED multiple times.

This is a good conversation because we do not talk much about CUE Motions filed against the BVA.It is far better to file them on RO decisions.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Berta

[Navy4life]

Berta;

https://helpdesk.vetsfirst.org/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=1874

this is where I got the language.  I value your opinions and see what you are saying but this is conflicting information so maybe my source is bad?