Thank You

[mountain tyme]

MT

Edited April 13, 2007 by mountain tyme

[mountain tyme]

mt

Edited April 13, 2007 by mountain tyme

[mountain tyme]

mt

Edited April 13, 2007 by mountain tyme

[cloudcroft]

Okay, Vike17, I deleted those two posts.

-- John D.

Edited January 28, 2007 by cloudcroft

[john999]

Vike

When I was rated 30% and became unemployed I sent in a Unemployability Form. A year later I got my IU and the date was from the date I sent in the request for IU. You seem to be discouraging people from appealing like so many of my VSO's in the past. If Mountains studies her rating decision I see a few areas at least where a few words added or subtracted might result in an IU award. An IMO would go a long way to get her IU from a good shrink who knows the ropes at the VA. A good lawyer also ways appeals a negative decision. If I listened to your logic I would probably still not have my IU.

[Testvet]

Army68 given that I have been locked up three times on the 3rd floor lockdown ward it wasn't admitting anything they didn't already know, the VA's own records substantiated my claim, I wasn't asserting anything, I just had a good VA doctor that knew how to word the visit statements, once I proved to him that the experiments happened his whole attitude towards me changed, he knows the government screwed me and those other men more than three decades ago, that's also why he labeled me as OCD, he says I am obsessed with the idea they used me in the drug and chemical weapons experiments ya think rofl wouldn't you be?

[Vike17]

John999,

So, what you're saying is Mountain Tyme should appeal her decision, even though by your own admission the decision is essentially correct with the current evidence of record. She should just have a "few areas...where a few words added or subtracted might result in an IU award" changed. That, in my book reeks of fraud: to try and have a few things changed by a doctor that would be willing to do it just to reflect a higher rating regardless if the 'new' symptoms are not accurate.

Even if her symptoms truely became worse within the one year appeals period, those new treatment records would be considered "new and Material" when submitted to VA, and if an increase was warranted based on the "new and material evidence," Mountain Tyme would still retain her original effective date! See §3.400 (q)(1).

So, your logic is actually illogical. Why clog up an appeals system with an 'appeal' that essentially isn't one.

Vike 17