Give a financial gift to help with the upkeep of HadIt.com. HadIt.com is NOT a non profit. Gifts are not tax deductible, they are just gifts.
Donation BoxPlease donate to support the community.
We appreciate all donations!
104 answers to this question
Did the VA make the same CUE twice? Please offer your opinion.
In my CUE, I asserted the VA failed to apply:
38 CFR 4.40 Functional Loss 4.45 The Joints Key provisions of the DeLuca ruling (painful motion = functional loss = limited motion)
Here is the rating decision denying CUE:
The VA acknowledges that a loud click was heard and painful motion started at 29 mm (falls in the criteria for a 20% rating)
Again, the VA failed to apply:
38 CFR 4.40 Functional Loss 4.45 The Joints Key provisions of the DeLuca ruling (painful motion = functional loss = limited motion) Do you agree that the VA again failed to apply these laws?
Should I have been granted a 20% rating?
I wanted to ask about something else I am considering adding. In Nov 1997, I had a C&P exam which was lost, but I later found it in my claims file. It is never mentioned - ever. What's great is in the second C&P exam, the doctor stated material from the first exam was "misplaced".
1. C&P examiner stated (in exam #2) that this material from exam #1 was misplaced (that's a CUE just by itself)
2. Dictionary definition of "midway" is "halfway"
3. Simple math: 35 mm divided by .5 (half) is 17.5 mm.
4. The DeLuca factors would confirm limited motion began at 17.5 mm.
Would a reasonable person to come to the conclusion that limited motion began at 17.5 mm?
Or would this be considered weighing of the evidence? I tend to disagree because this evidence was never weighed by the VA. Also, my interpretation uses objective facts (35 mm, midway meaning halfway, and common math). There is no attempt to weigh evidence.
My thanks go out to everyone here on hadit.com! In September 2019, I filed two CUE claims. One was granted and the other was denied, but will be appealed.
In 1995, I filed a claim for rhinitis/sinusitis (38 CFR 4.97 DC 6501/6522) and it was granted on appeal in 2000 due to aggravation of pre-existing disability. 30% was awarded, but it was reduced by 10% to 20% due to the C&P examiner's opinion: “OPINION: In my opinion, the veteran obviously had allergic problems before entering the service which got worse while he was in the service…” After fighting for five years, I was elated and took the VSO's advice not to rock the boat.
In 2009, I found hadit.com and began educating myself. I always felt something was not quite right and began researching this issue. I was still worried about rocking the boat, but in 2019 I finally got the courage to move forward after having a heart attack and realizing life is short. I performed extensive research and filed the CUE claim in September 2019. Because of the ridiculously strict CUE rules, I was required to use laws in effect at the time the rating decision was made, which were found in old copies of the Federal Register. Another challenge was boiling it down to just the facts, removing emotional factors, and presenting the error from the perspective of a reasonable person (i.e. 8th grade reading level, if that).
The VA failed to properly apply this pivotal law from 1961:
Two key factors apply:
1. VA must determine the level of disability existing at the time of entrance into active service
2. If the VA cannot determine the level of disability existing at the time of entrance into active service in terms of the rating schedule, they are not allowed to reduce the rating.
I then looked up the rating criteria in effect in 2000:
My entrance exam was "normal". The C&P found polyps to justify the 30% rating. Can "normal" be ascertained in terms of the rating schedule? No.
Other than including a copy of the evidence, relevant laws in effect at the time, and showing how the VA failed to follow the laws when making the decision, this summarizes the entire situation:
After the VA received my CUE packet, it took them 127 days to complete the request. Six weeks were wasted by the VA requesting copies of relevant medical records from the VAMC, despite those records already being present in my claims file. Considering the fact that my claims file was partially scrambled and even contained other veterans documents, I kind of don't blame them for re-requesting the records so they have them contiguously. One week was wasted by someone at the VARO asking if a CUE needed to be submitted on a specific form (as of today, not required per M21-1).
As for my other CUE, it was for TMJ and failing properly apply DeLuca and ROM laws. The rating decision contained even less detail than the original decision. In effect, they made the exact same error again, so I will be appealing.
I wanted to send out an update on my CUE claim. As I suspected from the process and response, I received a denial decision letter today. They denial almost verbatim regurgitated the same statements from the original denial in 1999. It's like the reviewer simply read the original denial, retyped it and said too bad without addressing the issue of probative values and presumption of sound condition. My question is for next step, should I go through the process of Higher Level Review to see what they say before going to the Board of Appeals to exhaust every option before hand. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
It was pointed out to me that I should file a CUE because my final rating decision although at 100% is not "permanent. They left it open for future exams. The person who suggested it just got his P&T rating and no further exams by claiming M-21-1, III.iv.3.B.2.c & d. Basically, because he was over the age of 55. My rating is for 100% for leukemia (CLL) (I know the rating criteria has been updated) and I'm over 55. Looking at the M21-1 and I feel I match four criteria listed. My question would be if the disability Rating Schedule says "perhaps" I will get reexamined in the future thinking I'm going to get cured, would that rating decision take precedent over the M21-1, or 38 CFR? I feel my condition is "static" and I have been getting worse for the past seven years and seven months, I'm over 55, the disability is permanent in character and I'm not likely going to improve, and the evaluation (rating) is the minimum for the DC. This disability is permanent and I'm not going to be cured. There is no cure. I do realize with treatment I could go into remission some day (perhaps) and I'll understand a reevaluation if that occurs. Thoughts?
Quick question to see if anyone knows what happens if you win a CUE relative to back pay. Does the VA automatically calculate any back pay based on individual solder and then you have to send them marriage cert, birth certs/ssns to show when you had your dependents added?
I'm just curious ... not getting ahead of myself but IF I am fortunate enough to win my cue, it would mean back pay for 20 years and would also mean that I would have changed from 20% in 1999 to some higher number. That would mean that my wife and children would also come into play starting in 2001 instead of 2019 like it is today. I have all of that data ready but I was curious if they send you a letter first requesting it before back pay is released or if they do the initial backpay at single and you have to make the adjust it.
Thanks as always,
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.?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.?
Vync posted an answer to a question,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?
Buck52 posted an answer to a question,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.
Picked By66 bricks,