RAMP: SMC S denial

[broncovet]

I just got the envelope yesterday.  SMC S was denied "even tho" my doc gave evidence that I was homebound, and, of course, I have not worked since 2003, and should be eligible for SMC S per Howell.

(From Alex website)

https://asknod.org/2014/08/25/cavc-howell-v-nicholson-what-smc-s-really-says/

In relevant part:

Quote

 The Secretary, citing to Senate Report No. 1745 (June 27, 1960), notes that in passing section 1114(s) Congress intended to provide additional compensation for veterans who were unable to overcome their particular disabilities and leave the house in order to earn an income as opposed to an inability to leave the house at all.

 

I noticed that the M21 manual "includes" references to Howell, but, that does not mean this rating specialist read it.  He also did not read my evidence.  Of course, I knew that GS9 rating specialists dont have the authority to award when it could mean 5 or 6 figure retro's, so its off to the BVA I go.  

I am considering Berta's "cue method" even when the decision is appealable, since it is cue to not adjuticate smc s, whenever a single 100 percent is awarded (according to M21 Mr).  

[Buck52]

52 minutes ago, broncovet said:

I just got the envelope yesterday.  SMC S was denied "even tho" my doc gave evidence that I was homebound, and, of course, I have not worked since 2003, and should be eligible for SMC S per Howell.

(From Alex website)

https://asknod.org/2014/08/25/cavc-howell-v-nicholson-what-smc-s-really-says/

In relevant part:

I noticed that the M21 manual "includes" references to Howell, but, that does not mean this rating specialist read it.  He also did not read my evidence.  Of course, I knew that GS9 rating specialists dont have the authority to award when it could mean 5 or 6 figure retro's, so its off to the BVA I go.  

I am considering Berta's "cue method" even when the decision is appealable, since it is cue to not adjuticate smc s, whenever a single 100 percent is awarded (according to M21 Mr).  

broncovet quoted

'' I am considering Berta's "cue method" even when the decision is appealable, since it is cue to not adjuticate smc s, whenever a single 100 percent is awarded (according to M21 Mr).''  

Yes I agree with the above

but was this decision made back in 2002/03...Did you have the 100% plus the extra 60 %separate S.C. Condition Back then?  or was you given the 60% years later? or the 100% years later on Appeal?

I don't understand why they denied the SMC S H.B....Unless you say  they never read your evidence you submitted? or maybe the evidence you submitted was not in effect yet???

[broncovet]

I believe they denied it because they never read the evidence!!!  They also did not read the M21 Mr.  

The decision was made in 2009...effective in 2006...but I later got an earlier date to 2004.  

New RAMP options are: (for decisions going to BVA)

1.  Board WITH HEARING.  (you can submit new evidence with the hearing option)  

2.  Board With new and relevant evidence.  

3.  Board without hearing and without new and relevant evidence.   This makes sense to me.  I cant do a hearing cuz I dont hear for schist.  (unless I get a representative).  The reason is the evidence is already there, the VARO ramp decision (SCL), just never bothered to read it.   

[Buck52]

 broncovet,

38CFR 3.156 (c) is a very good regulation for you to look at and I'm sure you already have.

f the VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section…

It then lists service records related to an event, injury, or disease in service, records forwarded by the Department of Defense or service department of the VA, or, interestingly, declassified records that could not previously be obtained because they were classified when the VA previously decided the claim.

The regulation goes on to state that when this type of “new” evidence leads to a grant of service connection, and support the assignment of a rating, “a retroactive evaluation WILL be assigned.” (emphasis added)  When this type of record is found, it can potentially mean an effective date years or decades earlier than the recent decision

[broncovet]

Correct, Buck.  I was hoping not to go through 4 more years of this in light of the fact I have already been waiting 17 years, since 2002.  

[FormerMember]

Found this on VBMS this morning.

"Decisions appealed to the Board for direct review are accomplished in an average of 365 daysThis is a vast improvement to the average 3-7 years Veterans waited in the Legacy process."

As for the denial, Loyal, look to the Howell decision and what you underlined. In spite of a 2680 declaring you housebound, that is the doctor's assessment. Remember  that a VA "examiner" (i.e. a rater) made the final decision. He probably based it on an incomplete understanding of the M 21. I rarely see SMC S granted based solely on a 100% rating rather than the standard 100 + 60 metric. 

If you would, copy and paste the actual denial language. Often, it is couched in VA legalese and difficult to unravel. You've dealt with VA long enough to realize they are devious and vague.

r

a

Edited February 23, 2019 by asknod

[Buck52]

yeah I hear that,

If you think they never bothered to read your probative evidence how would you react to that in appeal or disagree with the rater?

I mean its obvious they never read it  but can you still use that as your defense?

I would CUE them on this  if your evidence will change the out come of this decision as favorable , then they made a clear error WHEN THEY NEVER READ/&OR CONSIDERED YOUR EVIDENCE.

Unless your in doubt about CUE?

Also bronco check to see if your claim has expedite  entitlement because of your age?

 

Never mind on the expedite,  entitlement is

1. Terminal Illness

2. Advanced Age.....=75

3.Hardship

what was the reason & bases was your denial? if you included that I guess I missed it?