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 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

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

     

  • 0

Supplemental in AMA Timeline

Rate this question


Miken2c74

Question

Original claim opened in Nov 2013 (Legacy)

Claimed Denied Dec 2014 (Legacy)

Submitted NOD in Jun 2015 (Legacy)

Opted into RAMP July 2018

Denied Ramp May 2019

Supplemental Claim open June 2019 ( In decision phase now per VA)

 

Flat feet (aggrivated due to ) From original claim date ( new DBQ, Medical opinion, Nexus, lay statement) On supplemental claim

Knee condition from original claim date  also supplemental claim (New DBQ, Medical opinion, Nexus , Lay statement) on supplemental claim

Back condition from original claim date rated 20%

Fibro Denied

Hip condition denied

I am waiting to see how this comes out (nerve racking)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

The reason they chose 6/2019 as the effective date of your grants is because this was the date you submitted the supplemental claim that they granted your claims.  They did the same with mine and I've read on other threads where they have done the same to many others.  I had claims that I had been continuously pursuing since October 2010.  After going through years of the appeals process, BVA remanded my claims back to the examiner because the judge was skeptical of the denial.  I opted into RAMP with an HLR in 2019 and it was denied.  They made a duty to assist error on the first HLR so I was allowed another HLR in which I requested a different DRO.  It was denied as well.  In both HLRs the same examiner was asked to give medical opinions and this NP kept doubling down on the same false information to deny me.  She clearly had an axe to grind with me and she was clearly biased.  Before the decision was made on the second HLR, I was able to see the C&P exam in my VAMC records since this was done by a VA examiner and not a contractor.  I immediately submitted a 21-4138 challenging these C&P exams.  The claim was processed anyway and of course it was denied again.  

I went to my orthopedic surgeon with a nexus letter that I had already typed up for him using a template.  He took that letter and put it on his letterhead and signed it.  I submitted this in February 2020 as part of a supplemental claims.  I was sent for new exams but this time they sent me to a contractor instead of back to the same VA examiner who kept denying me.  My claims were finally all granted but as in your case, they made the effective dates in February 2020 instead of going back to October 2010.  

I used to work for the VBA so I asked a couple of my old coworkers who are still there if this was correct and they told me that the effective dates should go back to the original filing date as long as I had not missed any deadlines.  I went back and forth with trying to decide if an HLR would work or if I should send it to BVA.  Since this was a misapplication of the law and not a denial I was dealing with, I decided to go with the HLR since I knew a DRO would be reviewing it. I asked for an informal conference as well because I had all of the evidence in my possession showing the date of the original claim as well as all of the NODs and HLRs showing that I never missed the 1 year mark on any claim.  I also probably could have just written up a timeline and submitted this and all of my evidence with a supplemental claim but I felt more comfortable with the HLR and the DRO.  It worked out for me because the DRO called on Tuesday and told me she agreed with me and the dates would all be moved back.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

That is exactly what happened to me. I am going to do an HLR with a informal conference also. I am waiting on the letter.

I am writing on the HLR

PES Planus originally filed November 2013

Knee condition originally filed November 2013

 and the date of the notice in the block off to the right of the disabilities

Thanks @deedub75

Edited by Miken2c74
say Thank you
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

When I did mine, I wrote the following on the 20-0996:

"Earlier effective date for all rating decisions on 3/16/2020.  I have been continuously pursued these claims under 38 CFR 3.2500(c) for both knees, back, and left ankle since October 18, 2020."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

deedbub75 Short and sweet! It says it all. The only thing I would add is include a copy of the decision letter.

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


  • Tell a friend

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

    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • jERRYMCK earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      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
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • 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.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use