Jump to content


  • veteranscrisisline-badge-chat-1.gif

  • Advertisemnt

  • Trouble Remembering? This helped me.

    I have memory problems and as some of you may know I highly recommend Evernote and have for years. Though I've found that writing helps me remember more. I ran across Tom's videos on youtube, I'm a bit geeky and I also use an IPad so if you take notes on your IPad or you are thinking of going paperless check it out. I'm really happy with it, I use it with a program called Noteshelf 2.

    Click here to purchase your digital journal. HadIt.com receives a commission on each purchase.

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims

    questions-001@3x.png

    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
     
  • Ads

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • Advertisemnt

  • VA Watchdog

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
RBrogen

CUE Potential

Question

Hello Everyone,

I wanted to post this draft CUE motion here to get your opinions on strength of case, format and any other comments.  It has been redacted to remove my social.

General Overview:
I am service connected since March 2019 for neck, bilateral knees and ankles among other things.  The knees are the condition I am primarily focusing on at this time.

I had 3 full physical medical exams with no pre-existing conditions noted.  The first exam was when I joined the Florida Army National Guard September 16, 1985.  The second exam was when I transitioned to the regular Army on April 29, 1987  and the third exam was when I went to Airborne physical on March 13, 1989.  I injured my both knees during Airborne training, especially my left knee when I landed wrong on a jump due to wind.  I did NOT go to sick call or report it because there was no way I wanted to be recycled or told I couldn't come back ... which is a common theme with these types of training programs.  I also had an injury documented in STR for right knee MCL strain a few months before I got out.  I left the service because a few months after injuring my knee, I blew my back up and had a slipped disc and was discharged on July 3, 1991.

Not knowing anything about the VA, the DAV rep I had said file for your back so I did and was granted 20% for Low back syndrome as soon as I got out.  In 1999, I filed a claim for increase in low back syndrome as well as bilateral knee condition.  I had arthroscopic surgery on both knees and multiple instances of reports from doctors referring to the injury as service connected.  I was denied service connection for both knees as pre-existing condition on left knee and no chronicity on right knee.  I believe the rater completely ignored 38 U.S.C. 1111 as well as 38 CFR 4.6 in ignoring a preponderance of evidence supporting my claim.  I believe had the rater applied the laws correctly as well as reviewed the evidence available to him at the time, it would have manifestly changed the decision.

I'm attaching my information in pdf format to make it easier to read.  Than you all in advance for taking the time to look it over.

 

 

 

 

 

Cue Motion DRAFT Aug 29 2019_RedactedSmall.pdf

Edited by RBrogen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Randy, I think your CUE is swell!

Vync-that is an interesting point on  38 CFR § 4.2- I have never used that in CUE claims- because I feel 4.6 covers a lot -and medical determinations ,if they are wrong, do not raise to CUE level just on that basis- still it would not hurt to throw it in-

I believe the strongest point of this CUE is the Fact that RBrogen had no pre existing conditions listed on his entrance exam and was accepted into service as fit to serve- and was a paratrooper -certainly a well know cause of lower extremity and back issues for many with that MOS.

I didn't  leave because , as Buck said I had other issues to wok on- true- and lots of Fall maintenance on my home-and farm.

I left because most of us hard core VA claimants here have "practiced" before the VA at the VARO level by fighting their War of the Words.The VARO level is the best place t get a CUE awarded.

I recall only one veteran here who won a CUE at the BVA, a CUE Motion on  BVA decision.

And two widows who filed Motions for BVA reversal due to CUE and lost.

99% of the CUEs we see here occur at the RO level. GBArmy made that point somewhere here a few weeks ago-

if I can find how he stated it, it is well worth repeating.

I am very happy with the excellent CUE advice that Vync, Geeky Squid, GB Army , Kanewnut, Dawsonatl and others here have acquired. I feel I am missing others here as well I should mention...who do understand CUE at the RO LEVEL.

R Brogen does as well!

I only recall one member here who won a CUE at the BVA, as a motion under CUE on a BVA decision.Two widows filed BVA motions but lost.

They did not have basis for CUE even at the RO level.

That is where a CUE should receive a Frontal Attack- at the RO level----

if it is a valid CUE ,there is no need for it to get on the Hamster wheel.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Berta
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

And Vetquest and Mieka.....who also, like many others here ,understand CUE at the RO level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Berta said:

Randy, I think your CUE is swell!

Vync-that is an interesting point on  38 CFR § 4.2- I have never used that in CUE claims- because I feel 4.6 covers a lot -and medical determinations ,if they are wrong, do not raise to CUE level just on that basis- still it would not hurt to throw it in-

I believe the strongest point of this CUE is the Fact that RBrogen had no pre existing conditions listed on his entrance exam and was accepted into service as fit to serve- and was a paratrooper -certainly a well know cause of lower extremity and back issues for many with that MOS.

I didn't  leave because , as Buck said I had other issues to wok on- true- and lots of Fall maintenance on my home-and farm.

I left because most of us hard core VA claimants here have "practiced" before the VA at the VARO level by fighting their War of the Words.The VARO level is the best place t get a CUE awarded.

I recall only one veteran here who won a CUE at the BVA, a CUE Motion on  BVA decision.

And two widows who filed Motions for BVA reversal due to CUE and lost.

99% of the CUEs we see here occur at the RO level. GBArmy made that point somewhere here a few weeks ago-

if I can find how he stated it, it is well worth repeating.

I am very happy with the excellent CUE advice that Vync, Geeky Squid, GB Army , Kanewnut, Dawsonatl and others here have acquired. I feel I am missing others here as well I should mention...who do understand CUE at the RO LEVEL.

R Brogen does as well!

I only recall one member here who won a CUE at the BVA, as a motion under CUE on a BVA decision.Two widows filed BVA motions but lost.

They did not have basis for CUE even at the RO level.

That is where a CUE should receive a Frontal Attack- at the RO level----

if it is a valid CUE ,there is no need for it to get on the Hamster wheel.

 

 

 

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to review my information Berta.  It means a lot, as does all of the wonderful feedback.  I'm attaching my latest, hopefully final drat so I can send this over to the Boston RO.  Would you, and anyone else with thoughts on it please let me know what you think about the format and if I'm missing something major.  I don't want to loose the opportunity on a technicality.

Just now, RBrogen said:

Thanks so much for taking the time to review my information Berta.  It means a lot, as does all of the wonderful feedback.  I'm attaching my latest, hopefully final drat so I can send this over to the Boston RO.  Would you, and anyone else with thoughts on it please let me know what you think about the format and if I'm missing something major.  I don't want to loose the opportunity on a technicality.

 

Cue Motion Draft Sept 8 2019.pdf

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

@Berta I was talking recently with @GeekySquid about CUEs. I know referencing exhibits simply by using  (Exhibit A) can work, but what about being very specific like (Exhibit A page # para #). I have always said spoon feeding the VA exactly what they need can be a good thing. Some of my exhibits are a bit lengthy so it might be helpful to show them exactly where they need to look. Just curious about your thoughts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Ads

  • Our picks

    • Peggy toll free 1000 last week, told me that, my claim or case BVA Granted is at the RO waiting on someone to sign off ,She said your in step 5 going into step 6 . That's good, right.?
      • 6 replies
    • I took a look at your documents and am trying to interpret what happened. A summary of what happened would have helped, but I hope I am interpreting your intentions correctly:


      2003 asthma denied because they said you didn't have 'chronic' asthma diagnosis


      2018 Asthma/COPD granted 30% effective Feb 2015 based on FEV-1 of 60% and inhalational anti-inflamatory medication.

      "...granted SC for your asthma with COPD w/dypsnea because your STRs show you were diagnosed with asthma during your military service in 1995.


      First, check the date of your 2018 award letter. If it is WITHIN one year, file a notice of disagreement about the effective date. 

      If it is AFTER one year, that means your claim has became final. If you would like to try to get an earlier effective date, then CUE or new and material evidence are possible avenues. 

       

      I assume your 2003 denial was due to not finding "chronic" or continued symptoms noted per 38 CFR 3.303(b). In 2013, the Federal Circuit court (Walker v. Shinseki) changed they way they use the term "chronic" and requires the VA to use 3.303(a) for anything not listed under 3.307 and 3.309. You probably had a nexus and benefit of the doubt on your side when you won SC.

      It might be possible for you to CUE the effective date back to 2003 or earlier. You'll need to familiarize yourself with the restrictions of CUE. It has to be based on the evidence in the record and laws in effect at the time the decision was made. Avoid trying to argue on how they weighed a decision, but instead focus on the evidence/laws to prove they were not followed or the evidence was never considered. It's an uphill fight. I would start by recommending you look carefully at your service treatment records and locate every instance where you reported breathing issues, asthma diagnosis, or respiratory treatment (albuterol, steroids, etc...). CUE is not easy and it helps to do your homework before you file.

      Another option would be to file for an increased rating, but to do that you would need to meet the criteria for 60%. If you don't meet criteria for a 60% rating, just ensure you still meet the criteria for 30% (using daily inhaled steroid inhalers is adequate) because they are likely to deny your request for increase. You could attempt to request an earlier effective date that way.

       

      Does this help?
    • Thanks for that. So do you have a specific answer or experience with it bouncing between the two?
    • Tinnitus comes in two forms: subjective and objective. In subjective tinnitus, only the sufferer will hear the ringing in their own ears. In objective tinnitus, the sound can be heard by a doctor who is examining the ear canals. Objective tinnitus is extremely rare, while subjective tinnitus is by far the most common form of the disorder.

      The sounds of tinnitus may vary with the person experiencing it. Some will hear a ringing, while others will hear a buzzing. At times people may hear a chirping or whistling sound. These sounds may be constant or intermittent. They may also vary in volume and are generally more obtrusive when the sufferer is in a quiet environment. Many tinnitus sufferers find their symptoms are at their worst when they’re trying to fall asleep.

      ...................Buck
        • Like
    • Precedent Setting CAVC cases cited in the M21-1
      A couple months back before I received my decision I started preparing for the appeal I knew I would be filing.  That is how little faith I had in the VA caring about we the veteran. 

      One of the things I did is I went through the entire M21-1 and documented every CAVC precedent case that the VA cited. I did this because I wanted to see what the rater was seeing.  I could not understand for the life of me why so many obviously bad decisions were being handed down.  I think the bottom line is that the wrong type of people are hired as raters.  I think raters should have some kind of legal background.  They do not need to be lawyers but I think paralegals would be a good idea.

      There have been more than 3500 precedent setting decisions from the CAVC since 1989.  Now we need to concede that all of them are not favorable to the veteran but I have learned that in a lot of cases even though the veteran lost a case it some rules were established that assisted other veterans.

      The document I created has about 200 or so decisions cited in the M21-1.   Considering the fact that there are more than 3500 precedent cases out there I think it is safe to assume the VA purposely left out decisions that would make it almost impossible to deny veteran claims.  Case in point. I know of 14 precedent setting decisions that state the VA cannot ignore or give no weight to outside doctors without providing valid medical reasons as to why.  Most of these decision are not cited by the M21.

      It is important that we do our due diligence to make sure we do not get screwed.  I think the M21-1 is incomplete because there is too much information we veterans are finding on our own to get the benefits we deserve

      M21-1 Precedent setting decisions .docx
      • 5 replies
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines