Back pay boondoggle

[El Train]

Long story short.  I claimed scars in 1993 when I exited military.  Denied, couldn't find records. Denial letter states 'if we find your records we may reconsider'. Fast forward to to 2017.  Found my records in storage, filed again for scars.  Got 10%.  Filed an NOD and got an outside IME.  Had another VA C&P that turned out great in my favor.  80% overall for scars.  Hired a law firm to get back pay from 93.  They granted the retro at the original 10% and not the increased 80%.  Go figure.  They aren't gonna give that 80% back to 1993 easily I guess.  The fight continues.  I'll keep everyone posted.

The fact they backdated states they agree it should be granted I suppose.

[GBArmy]

Sounds kinda simple. But I know one thing , to get back pay difference between 10-80% going back some 26 years is not going to be simple. There are a lot of loop holes my little mind can't imagine. The VA's suits are going to fight hard to hang onto that pile of cash. I hope you have a good lawyer for EED. Wish you the best of luck brother.

[El Train]

I have CCK in partnership with Woods & Woods working it.  And I believe they put in an increase for the rating as well.  

[Buck52]

You might want to check with Hadit Mod & Member broncovet   he is pretty good with these EED's and the regulations to win them.

Do you mean you got an increase for the scars? from 10% to 80%???

I don't think I understand that?..unless you have a combined rating to reach the 80%for another S.C. Condition? Injury or Diseases?

[broncovet]

If you have CCK and woods and woods, well, you have some of the best.  What did they tell you about this?

Your effective date is the later of the "date of claim" or facts found.  The facts found usually means the date  the doc said you were disabled.  

New service records (38cfr 3.156c) should apply here, since you indicated the records were eventually found.  If you applied within a year of exit from service, you could get an effective date back to your date of discharge. 

Since I havent read your file, I suggest you do as ccklaw, and woods and woods suggest.   If you have 2 giant law firms working this, they obviously think you will win. 

Edited May 21, 2020 by broncovet

[deedub75]

Interesting.  Keep us posted on how they decide this.  I'm fighting the backpay boondoggle as well from a claim I filed in 2010.  

I filed for pes planus and knees/back secondary to pes planus and right ankle (was already 10% for this).  It took about 3 years due to the backlog and me moving to a different state but pes planus was denied so of course knees and back were denied as well.  It was noted on my exams that I did have bilateral knee tendinitis and a back issue.  I filed a NOD and asked for a de novo review and I was sent for new exams.  The pes planus claim was granted at 30% with the effective date back to the original date of claim in 2010 but the knees and back claims were denied again.  Even though it was clearly stated on my exit exam that I had an abnormal gait, the examiner claimed that I had a normal gait so it wasn't possible for my pes planus to cause my knees and back issues.  She also claimed that the literature says that pes planus could not cause knee and back issues.  I submitted a copy of my exit exam and asked for it to go to the BVA.  BVA remanded it questioning the examiners reasoning for the denial and asked for the literature that she was referencing.  I opted into RAMP to speed things up.  The same examiner then opined that although I had a bad gait, it wasn't bad enough.  She also threw in my weight and age as the reason for my knee and back issues.  In 2010, I was only 35 and nowhere near overweight.  In February 2020, I submitted a supplemental claim and a nexus statement from my orthopedic surgeon stating that it was more than likely that my knee and back issues were cause by me running, marching, etc. on a bad ankle and flat feet while I was on active duty.  Claims were finally granted but they made the effective date the date that I submitted the supplemental claim.  

So, in my humble opinion, it was clear to the VA when I filed in 2010 that I had diagnosed pes planus, knees and back issues.  And since they eventually granted pes planus with the 2010 effective date, the same should go for the knees and back.  I filed an HLR for them to correct the effective since I had been continuously pursuing these claims since 2010.  Hopefully, they will fix it but if they don't I think the BVA will.  

[El Train]

13 hours ago, broncovet said:

If you have CCK and woods and woods, well, you have some of the best.  What did they tell you about this?

Your effective date is the later of the "date of claim" or facts found.  The facts found usually means the date  the doc said you were disabled.  

New service records (38cfr 3.156c) should apply here, since you indicated the records were eventually found.  If you applied within a year of exit from service, you could get an effective date back to your date of discharge. 

Since I havent read your file, I suggest you do as ccklaw, and woods and woods suggest.   If you have 2 giant law firms working this, they obviously think you will win. 

CCK is very vague with me.  We're looking into all options, is the standard answer.  I'll let them do their thing and let the chips fall where they may.  I did apply within a year of discharge.  Right now 10% backdated is a good start (minus attorney fees).  The increase to 80% came via an outside MD opinion 'More likely than not, this was aggravated in service.  The VA agreed, thus increased to 80% after their own C&P.  It sure didn't get worse when I got out.  The damage was done and explicitly documented in my service records.  I think it's a good case.  A battle is brewing my friends.