Requested Increase, and they removed my Service Connection!

[flow1972]

Every interaction with the VA Claims people makes me want to pull my hair out.  I was granted SC for Asthma last year at 10% as worsened by service.  10% because I was on an Albuterol Inhaler as needed.

I submitted a Claim to increase the rating to 30% because I was recently put on an inhaled cortiso-steroid which would put me at 30%.  I'll be damned if they didn't even examine me for it...they requested a DBQ from a Dr I've never seen who "decided" that basically it never should have been SC'd in the first place because though it does show I had to be treated in service and prescribed an inhaler (literally states I'd never needed one in 11 years prior to service) that he doesn't really think I even "have asthma" but if I do...it wasn't "worsened beyond normal disease progression".. Wait what?  I don't really have it...but just in case..it didn't get worse by more than it would normally have.  OMG!!!!  I want to freaking scream right now!!!!  He literally wrote some lengthy diatribe of my history where he double-talks the entire way through.  Just exactly what IS "normal progression" for a disease I don't have, Mr. Asthma expert?  He literally says two different things in one statement.  Notes I've only been seen X amount of times...blah, blah, blah.  Well, let me tell ya, Mr. Expert.  The reg does not in any way state I have to be seen a specific number of times.  Considering I hadn't been seen AT ALL for 11 years for anything even resembling Asthma prior to service...then even ONCE is MORE than before.  What it states is was it "worsened"?  No visits, no meds...to visits and meds = worse.  I'm D-O-N-E with these idiots.  I'm literally going to get a lawyer to deal with them.  I am literally at 91.37% (was 92.23) with an open HLR on incorrect rating that should have also been at 30% with another open new Claim.  This is nothing more than them TRYING TO KEEP VETERAN's FROM HITTING 100%!  

 

 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by flow1972

[flow1972]

14 minutes ago, deedub75 said:

There won't be a proposed reduction if it's not changing the overall percentage. 

I had something like this happen to me after I hit 100%. My ankle was reduced from 20% to 10% and a scar from surgery was reduced from 10% to 0%. This was after having a follow up from a temporary 100% for surgery. It didn't reduce my overall percentage so there is no proposal to reduce. 

There is no proposed reduction since it didn't change my over all %.  I'm still at 90%.  Speaking to the lawyer's office today though..they said it was pretty unusual for them to sever an already SC'd condition.  My guess is, we'll be appealing directly to the BVA whether they represent me or I represent myself...I won't just sit around and accept their idiocy.

[pacmanx1]

 

For whatever the reason there are more no proposed reductions coming from the Varo’s and many of them occur during when a veteran file for an increase. As stated in my post earlier it is called “Mischaracterization of Issue(s) on Appeal” which is an improper reduction. This is part of my claim that BVA just granted as an un-adjudicated 1998 award. When I disagreed with my 50% effective date, someone at the VARO decided to try to discourage me from continuing my appeal by illegally decreasing my rating. I continued my appeal and that’s when BVA not only granted the un-adjudicated effective date, but they also made the VARO restore my rating back to 50%. Be forewarned, once appealed make sure you pay close attention of your new effective date. It should go back to the original date awarded. The VARO will try anything, and it is up to us veterans to call bull sh_t.

A veteran can file a CUE claim at any time but if you are not familiar with CUE claims a simple NOD (Notice of Disagreement) will do. No need to file a CUE because the results would be the same, (RESTORATION OF BENEFITS).

[flow1972]

12 minutes ago, pacmanx1 said:

 

For whatever the reason there are more no proposed reductions coming from the Varo’s and many of them occur during when a veteran file for an increase. As stated in my post earlier it is called “Mischaracterization of Issue(s) on Appeal” which is an improper reduction. This is part of my claim that BVA just granted as an un-adjudicated 1998 award. When I disagreed with my 50% effective date, someone at the VARO decided to try to discourage me from continuing my appeal by illegally decreasing my rating. I continued my appeal and that’s when BVA not only granted the un-adjudicated effective date, but they also made the VARO restore my rating back to 50%. Be forewarned, once appealed make sure you pay close attention of your new effective date. It should go back to the original date awarded. The VARO will try anything, and it is up to us veterans to call bull sh_t.

A veteran can file a CUE claim at any time but if you are not familiar with CUE claims a simple NOD (Notice of Disagreement) will do. No need to file a CUE because the results would be the same, (RESTORATION OF BENEFITS).

Just curious...how long did it take from the bad decision to the BVA correcting it after you filed the NOD?

[pacmanx1]

Please keep in mind that even though our claims are similar, they are quite different in as my claim has been in continued pursuit since 1998.  Going back and forth from the VARO and BVA to the CAVC to multiple remands and finally a grant. As for the reduction was 2016 and for the restoration was 2020. Since you are filing an NOD under the new system, I am sure that it should not take that long and you should retain your effective date.  My issue is that the VARO is trying their best to avoid paying my 50% retro back to 1998. In my most recent decision, the VARO is still trying to get me to withdraw all my claims on appeal. Not likely to happen but they are trying.

[flow1972]

1 hour ago, pacmanx1 said:

Please keep in mind that even though our claims are similar, they are quite different in as my claim has been in continued pursuit since 1998.  Going back and forth from the VARO and BVA to the CAVC to multiple remands and finally a grant. As for the reduction was 2016 and for the restoration was 2020. Since you are filing an NOD under the new system, I am sure that it should not take that long and you should retain your effective date.  My issue is that the VARO is trying their best to avoid paying my 50% retro back to 1998. In my most recent decision, the VARO is still trying to get me to withdraw all my claims on appeal. Not likely to happen but they are trying.

Wow.  Just...absolutely nuts.  There should literally be people who lose their jobs for this kind of ridiculousness.  

[63Charlie]

Might as well throw my two cents in as this topic was too temping to resist.

 

I filed for an increase around four years ago on multiple service connected conditions.

The VARO had a necktie party awaiting me by sending me to a general C&P exam.

I had no idea what a " general " C&P exam even meant ???

Come to find out the VARO ordered this examiner to re-evaluate ALL of my service connected conditions, NOT just the ones I was asking increases for.

Her re-evaluations recommended reductions and also severance of my service connected conditions across the board(excluding mental health).

 

One of the conditions I  filed an increase for was for facial scars, which was rated at 10%.

I said to her nonchalantly, "By the way, would you please take a look at this one little scar on my face.?"

I asked, " Do you see how it sinks in when it is pressed upon?"

She said yes.

Next I asked, "Would you please measure it ?"

She said my scar measured 1.5 CM.

I asked, " Will you note these two things on the DBQ that you are completing?"

She said yes.

 

Those two seemingly insignificant facial scar characteristics qualified for a jump to a 30% rating.

Nobody could ever convince me that had she known the 8 characteristics of scar ratings, she "more likely than not" would not have noted those and performed an inadequate C&P exam.

To make a long story short, the VARO was notified I met the criteria for the increase to 30% based upon the new C&P DBQ scar characteristics.

 

Here comes the twist.

The VARO ignored the above-styled new evidence and continued with the 10% rating with not offering so much as a mention of that C&P exam in their decision letter.

 

Back on the hamster wheel I'm thrown...so I wait in line a few more years till my appeal gets in front of the decision makers at the BVA.

Now you're thinking, he's got this one in the bag, right?

Well...anyway, common sense made me think I did.

 

Not so fast, Jack.

Hold.... your horses.

 

I didn't get an increase to 30%.

More fun is yet to be had.

This must be really complicated stuff, right?

 

The BVA kicked my appeal back to the VARO with a remand.

 

I don't have the new BVA decision letter as of now but I'm predicting it will contain some strange rationales that would "more likely than not" drive the logical Vulcan, Mr. Spock, insane, based upon the lack of logic thereof.

Don't give up the fight even when things make no sense.

Live long, and prosper, you guys!

Edited October 21, 2020 by 63Charlie