Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
- 0
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
Our picks
-
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability ratingPicked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Welcome to hadit!
There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not. Try reading this:
https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in What is the DIC timeline?
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Good question.
Maybe I can clear it up.
The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more. (my paraphrase).
More here:
Source:
https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
Guest haroldkd
First, I would like to thank Berta for writing a CUE for me on the old forum.
I did more research and study and believe the following might be another
approach to putting in a claim of CUE for my claim
P;EASE make comments, a person needs all the help and suggestions both negative and positive.
I will keep this as short as possible
In 1961 the doctors wrote on form 21-6796-1 and I will just qoute what is
pertinent.
This veteran filed claim seeking service connection for dermatitus. The evidence of record shows that during service and since service as shown by the current physical examination the veteran has multiple sebaceous cyst,chronic, recurring of the back of the veteran's neck. S ince these cysts are a constitutional and developmental abnormalty they will be disposed of under Code 13 as it is not shown the veteran had dematitis during service.
On this form they show the following
13, Constitution or developmental abnormality - not a disabbility under the law -- MULTIPLE SEBACEOUS CYST ON BACK OF NECK
The date on this rating was 01-3-62
The date on the denial letter 01-5-62
Here is the denial
Your multiple sebacious cys on back of neck are not a disease or injury within the meaning of laws and regulations governing payment of disability compensation and pension. Service connection may not be granted for this.
I was diagnosed 8 times during the serviice. On 2-3-60 Dermatology consult.
folliculitis and dermatitus
2 months after leaving service 12-61 a C&P exam
the diagnosis was multiple sebaceous cysts on the back of the neck chronic and recurring.
They left out the chronic and recurring on the denial, although it is definately part of the diagnosis and should have been so in the denail
under 38 CFR3.303 (B) chronicity and continuity Put into the regulations February 1961, 8 months before this decision.
I believe this is where they did not follow the laws and regulation at the time.That would be CUE ???
38 CFR 34.303 (B)
(:D Chronicity and continuity. with chronic disease shoown as such in service(or within the presumptive period under Sec. 3.307) so as to permit finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at a later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. This rule does not mean that any manifestation of joint pain any abnormality of heart action or heart sounds, any urinary findings of casts, or any cough, in service will permit service connection of arthritis, disease of the heart, nephritis, or pulmanary disease, first shown as a clearcut clinical entity, at some later date. For the showinf of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficientto identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merelyisolated findings or a diagnosis including the word "Chronic." When the disease identity is established (leprosy, turbuculosis, multiple sclerosis, etc. ), there is no requirement of evidentiary showing of continuity. Continuity ofsymptomatology is required nly where the condition noted duringservice(or the presumptive period) is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim.
2 years I had this disease in the service and still have disease today
They put the words chronic and recurring in the diagnosis. There should be No argument as to chronicity and continuity.
Please add your comments,
Thank you
Harold
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
Popular Days
Sep 4
4
Sep 5
3
Sep 6
2
Oct 18
2
Top Posters For This Question
Hoppy 2 posts
Popular Days
Sep 4 2005
4 posts
Sep 5 2005
3 posts
Sep 6 2005
2 posts
Oct 18 2005
2 posts
10 answers to this question
Recommended Posts