bigbetty3id Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 Would this be considered a CUE, because I am confused on what is a CUE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Moderator broncovet Posted January 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted January 11, 2019 Berta posted : (on the hadit site) Quote One of the first things vet reps should look for in a denial, is whether the VCAA letter was correct (if that letter is detrimental to the claimant, it will surely become a lengthy BVA case, remand due to VCAA violation, and back to BVA scenario ). Im not getting this. I recall reading that" failure in the Duty to Assist" is not CUE, probably in part, because its not outcome determinative. In other words, if the VA fails to send you a DTA letter, or sends one with errors, this does not necessarily mean you would be awarded that particular benefit, that is, it would be "harmless error". If that issue was subsequently awarded (later), then I could see how it was outcome determinative. Please explain, Berta. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Berta Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) If the VA fails to send an adequate VCAA letter 0r 5103 waiver, it can damage the claim forever- If you respond to the VCAA or 5103 with additional evidence or attach copies of what you already sent , and/or list the evidence they have n the letter or waiver, and/or the VARO calls you and confirms the evidence they have- and then they do not consider the evidence, and if it is Probative, then their denial will be a CUE under 38 CFR4.6. The was an issue with my BVA remand...as I explained here before and also is probative to my pending CUEs- they sent a 5103 for 2 pending claims, denied one and never addressed the evidence for the other claim. They awarded the first claim within one month due to my CUE on that. This is from my BVA award: dated 2009: I had asked for a remand to obtain a valid VCAA letter: "Although the appellant is already entitled to benefits "as if" service connected for the cause of death under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151, there are a number of ancillary benefits to which she would not be entitled absent a finding of actual service-connected death; hence, there has been no full grant of the benefit sought. "The VCAA is not applicable where further assistance would not aid the appellant in substantiating her claim. Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet App 362 (2001); see 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(a)(2) (Secretary not required to provide assistance "if no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim"). In view of the Board's favorable decision in this appeal, further assistance is unnecessary to aid the appellant in substantiating her claim. The claimant perfected her appeal with regard to service connection for the cause of death by filing correspondence accepted in lieu of a VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, in January 2006. Although this was outside the one year period from the February 2004 denial, and beyond the 60 day period from issuance of a statement of the case (SOC) in September 2005, the claimant submitted or caused to be created additional evidence requiring the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) in December 2005; therefore, the time for perfection of the appeal was extended. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b)(2) (2008)._ ( this was because of a CUE I filed via VACO as a complaint.I explained that all here long ago.) "The appellant did not perfect her appeal regarding entitlement to SMC for accrued benefits purposes." ( My note- that was awarded under a CUE I filed on a 1998 decision) "FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At the time of his death on October [redacted], 1994, the Veteran was service connected for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. 2. The Veteran died in October 1994; the immediate cause of death was myocardial arrhythmia, due to or as a consequence of myocardial ischemia, due to or as a consequence of coronary artery atherosclerosis. 3. The weight of the competent evidence is at least in relative equipoise on the questions of whether the Veteran had diabetes during his lifetime that was caused by Agent Orange exposure during his Vietnam service, and whether that diabetes caused or contributed substantially or materially in causing the Veteran's death. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in the appellant's favor, the criteria for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death are met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1310, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.312 (2008). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Duties to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102 atherosclerosis. In August 1992, the Veteran was admitted to the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Bath, NY, with a medical history that was significant for PTSD and hypertension. The Veteran died on October [redacted], 1994. His death certificate reported that his death was as a result of myocardial arrhythmia, due to or as a consequence of myocardial ischemia, due to or as a consequence of coronary artery atherosclerosis. Multiple cerebral infarcts were listed on the death certificate as a significant factor contributing to, but not unrelated to, the cause of death. In an undated letter, Dr. H.R. wrote that the Veteran's blood sugars on August 27, 1992 and August 28, 1992 were abnormally high and should have prompted a glucose tolerance test. In a November 2004 report, Dr. CRB offered the opinion that, based on findings of multiple high blood sugars, the Veteran had diabetes many years prior to his death. He opined that the Veteran likely had uncontrolled and untreated diabetes several years prior to his death, and that his undiagnosed diabetes was a result of his Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. Dr. CRB opined that the Veteran's death was more (etc etc ) "Regarding the November 2008 VA reviewers conclusion that he was unable to resolve the matters without resorting to mere speculation, the Board notes that statements from doctors which are inconclusive as to the origin of a disease cannot fulfill the nexus requirement. Warren v. Brown, 6 Vet. App." (That was based on my immediate rebuttal and the fact that the remand called for a Cardio opinion, not an opinion from a PA.I sent my rebuttal to the PA as wel as the BVA and the PA might ave provided an additional opinion thatsaid the initial exam was too speculative.) I just put excerpts.Here is where the case is at BVA 2009 Decision Date: 04/29/09 Archive Date: 05/07/09 DOCKET NO. 05-28 472A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Buffalo, New York "THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death." -------------------------------------- An improper VCAA or 5103 can doom a claim.It will set the stage for a denial under 38 CFR 4.6 in many respects. All of the NYS vet reps who would not help me get a proper VCAA letter are now gone.... and even their director was gone,( right away) after I filed a 43 page complaint with evidence against them. The director had written to me, because I was asking someone on my POA to help- and he stated my VCAA letter was correct.His removal was announced at some public veteran's meeting but some big deal state honcho. As to the BVA decision above The undated Letter from DR H R was dated in the email he sent to me, that VA also had with the letter......... a very brief opinion that BVA gave weight to.He was a Neurologist who had formerly worked for VA. It took me 8 months to find him. He was the only doctor who knew what he was doing when my husband was at the Syracuse VAMC. The other VA cardio- neuro doctors tried to cover up his diagnosis-they actually crossed it out in the med records, (but I was able to uncover what he wrote )and tried to cover up the other malpractice at Bath NY VAMC. They failed to do that.(FTCA/1151) Edited January 11, 2019 by Berta to explain better 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 More sharing options...
0 Berta Posted January 11, 2019 Share Posted January 11, 2019 (edited) I loved the "at least" part: "The weight of the competent evidence is at least in relative equipoise " you bet- I LOL every time I read that- there was Considerable more evidence and the BVA only mentioned some of it. It was well beyond Relative Equipoise....and could have helped others with a similar claim. I collected all the evidence I needed before I even contacted Dr Bash and Dr HR. Dr Bash did the IMO in less then one week after he got my stuff.And then did another one-,as well. DTA- I applied the Duty to Assist to myself and my evidence. None of my decisions reveal the VA did that. Edited January 11, 2019 by Berta 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 More sharing options...
0 HadIt.com Elder john999 Posted January 11, 2019 HadIt.com Elder Share Posted January 11, 2019 I guess one thing to do is to file the NOD on your decisions to start appeal process. Once that is started you can file CUE claims. My CUE took about 6 years to be finally denied. You don't want to wait that long if traditional appeal process would be faster. For additional appeal process to really work you should try and get new evidence of existing disability that was first diagnosed in service like your asthma. Berta is a CUE wiz and hard to beat. For lessor beings I would refer to BroncoVet's list of CUE requirements such as the error being "undebatable". This requirement alone can knock down most CUE claims. Undebatable in my case was that no one could even raise a question about my CUE. Any concerns expressed by anyone at the Court of Vet Appeals Hearing about the nature of my CUE made it debatable. That is really a Catch-22. I had a lawyer with my CUE and we both thought it was slam/dunk just due to the fact that crucial evidence was excluded from my initial claim. However, due to having to abide by 1973 rules I could not prove beyond any debate that VA did exclude my evidence . Most lawyers are just not equipped to really argue a CUE claim, and they don't want to do it. The VA has a host of lawyers who do this all the time and they have unlimited resources. However, if you think you have a good CUE file it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Berta Posted January 12, 2019 Share Posted January 12, 2019 BTY- the Diabetes Training letter available here under a search is dated 2000. For my BVA case I had used the 1997 Diabetes Training letter-different in many respects from the 2000 one because it was consistent with my DMII death claim and the fact the the World Health Org had changed the definition of diabetes- during the time my husband had been undiagnosed and untreated for it. I mention this because I said I had a lot of evidence for my BVA award in addition to the IMOs- such as my husband's drivers licence, his optometry exams at VA, and even his VA dental records, and also his pre employment physical for VA, and his Performance appraisals from the VA, ....as well as the autopsy. This was all included in the packet I sent to Dr. Bash. My point is that before paying lots of money for an IMO or IME-it sure pays to lay out all of your evidence, and attach copies of it to any request from the IMO/IME doctor for everything you have got. Evidence can come from many sources in addition to VA medical records. And a 38 CFR 4.6 CUE can rest on evidence from many sources other than the VA, as long as VA had that evidence in their possession, when they commited a 38 CFR 4.6 CUE. 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 More sharing options...
0 bigbetty3id Posted January 12, 2019 Author Share Posted January 12, 2019 Thank You Berta and others for all of the good information on this topic. I will use it to the best of my ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
bigbetty3id
Would this be considered a CUE, because I am confused on what is a CUE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
8
3
2
2
Popular Days
Jan 11
7
Jan 12
4
Jan 10
3
Jan 13
3
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 8 posts
broncovet 3 posts
FormerMember 2 posts
bigbetty3id 2 posts
Popular Days
Jan 11 2019
7 posts
Jan 12 2019
4 posts
Jan 10 2019
3 posts
Jan 13 2019
3 posts
Posted Images
17 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now