Deleted

[Guest rickb54]

deleted

Edited February 19, 2007 by rickb54

[Vike17]

Rickb54,

O.k., i was able to go through this with a liitle more time. Berta is correct with the 90 day time frame to send in additional evidence ect... This is noted under "Rule 1304" or §20.1304 ( a ) in which it states;

"a) Request for a change in representation, request for a personal hearing, or submission of additional evidence within 90 days following notification of certification and transfer of records. An appellant and his or her representative, if any, will be granted a period of 90 days following the mailing of notice to them that an appeal has been certified to the Board for appellate review and that the appellate record has been transferred to the Board, or until the date the appellate decision is promulgated by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, whichever comes first, during which they may submit a request for a personal hearing, additional evidence, or a request for a change in representation. Any such request or additional evidence must be submitted directly to the Board and not to the agency of original jurisdiction. The date of mailing of the letter of notification will be presumed to be the same as the date of that letter for purposes of determining whether the request was timely made or the evidence was timely submitted. Any evidence which is submitted at a hearing on appeal which was requested during such period will be considered to have been received during such period, even though the hearing may be held following the expiration of the period. Any pertinent evidence submitted by the appellant or representative is subject to the requirements of paragraph © of this section if a simultaneously contested claim is involved."

From the way it looks the veterans file is still at the RO awaiting decisions on other matter but hasn't left the that office yet, which means that according to §19.37( a ) those IMO's ect.. will be condsidered by that veteran's regional office, and they will either grant the benefits sought or issue a SSOC based on those IMO's ect.. §19.37 states;

"§19.37 Consideration of additional evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction after an appeal has been initiated.

(a) Evidence received prior to transfer of records to Board of Veterans' Appeals. Evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction prior to transfer of the records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals after an appeal has been initiated (including evidence received after certification has been completed) will be referred to the appropriate rating or authorization activity for review and disposition. If the Statement of the Case and any prior Supplemental Statements of the Case were prepared before the receipt of the additional evidence, a Supplemental Statement of the Case will be furnished to the appellant and his or her representative as provided in SS19.31 of this part, unless the additional evidence received duplicates evidence previously of record which was discussed in the Statement of the Case or a prior Supplemental Statement of the Case or the additional evidence is not relevant to the issue, or issues, on appeal.

( Evidence received after transfer of records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Additional evidence received by the agency of original jurisdiction after the records have been transferred to the Board of Veterans' Appeals for appellate consideration will be forwarded to the Board if it has a bearing on the appellate issue or issues. The Board will then determine what action is required with respect to the additional evidence. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105(d)(1))"

Furthermore, like I said before, I wouldn't withdraw the appeal. The veteran has been this far, why pull the appeal and loose that possible retro. I also don't think there is a poosibility of getting an EED back to 2000. The veteran didn't appeal the first decision and had to re-open it two years later. It doesn't appear either there was a CUE involved, which would be the only way to recover any possible retro back to then.

Vike 17

[sixthscents]

Not if he qualifies his statements.

i.e. A complete examination of the patient's records from etc etc and my own personal observations over the past etc lead me to conclude that Mr/Ms is suffering from an acute/severe/mild form of, also known as. The common side effects of this disease are, and Mr/Mrs displays constantly, recurrantly, frequently normally 1 to 2 days per week etc etc etc

Basically if the IMO further clarifies the symptomology and diagnosis, it isnt a duplicate. If it just says what everyone else has already said.. its duplicating.

So, if you are going to submit an IMO you should ensure that they are as definative (and Docs HATE being definate) as possible, with no generalizations speaking specifically as to how the illness or disorder affects you in a day to day or work setting as well as in you personal responsibilities such as: driving a car, operating complex machinery etc ...

Does that make sense?

[sixthscents]

Um, I'd say its new evidence since it clarifies statements made by the same physician. Its really not new evidence but a clarification of already submitted evidence... so I dont see how they can deny it reasonably. Also, its been my experience that SSOC end up way late... I'd almost bet if you are going for a hearing they actually wont issue a SSOC, but include it simply as PART of the appeal considering it new and material evidence... the key word is material..

the fact that this evidence clarifies exactly what the physician, tech etc MEANT by using a term makes it material to the claim... or I guess you could say its germaine...