tdiu Reopened Claim --new And Material Evidence

[carlie]

http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/admin21/m21_1/...2/ch02_sece.doc

A reopened claim is any claim for service connection, received after a finally denied claim, which VA must reconsider because the evidence it presents is new and material. A finally denied claim means that at least one year has elapsed since the letter was sent notifying the claimant of the decision to deny the benefit sought.

Note: The term “reopened” does not apply to pension, increased ratings, or individual unemployability. Those claims involve the review of new evidence based on new applications, rather than reconsideration of prior decisions. For this reason, they are “new” claims.

Reference: For more information on reopened claims, see 38 CFR 3.160(e).

________________________________________________________________________________

__________________

c. Definition: Evidence Evidence is any means by which an alleged matter of fact is established or disproved.

Examples: Examples of evidence include the following:

• testimony, to include

 statements

 contentions, and

 arguments

• documentary proof

• medical examinations or reports, and

• other material not previously considered.

________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________

d. Definitions: New Evidence and Material Evidence New evidence is evidence not previously of record.

Material evidence

• is relevant and relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim, and

• has a legitimate influence or bearing on the decision in the case.

Note: The provisions of 38 CFR 3.105(b) do not apply if a decision is changed because of the receipt of new and material evidence.

Reference: For more information on material evidence, see 38 CFR 3.156.

You also have to be careful of cumulative evidence .

Hope this helps a vet,

carlie

[Berta]

Good info Carlie and you are RIGHT!

"You also have to be careful of cumulative evidence"

I made this point in a cover letter to the VA with my 3rd 2006 IMO submission- that although it was in addition to a past IMO 2004 from the same doctor it was not cumulative nor redundant and addressed the issues in the last SSOC they had issued (without ever listing any of the IMOs as evidence)

I had a vet with this problem recently - got an IMO that they rejected -it did not follow the criteria for IMOs at all-

he then got another one from the same doc- but it was cumulative- so they said-practically the same thing-

I gave him the IMO stuff here-

The doctor is preparing another one now that will be much better for his claim-

Private doctors really dont know what the VA needs in many situations-and they should be willing to follow the criteria.

It would be nice if the C & P docs always followed it too- I go ballistic when I see a BVA remand because the VA doc forgot to address parts of this criteria-