Do u see the error

[Mr cue]

 

I hope I did it right.

I just want to get advice and see if anyone see the errors

[Buck52]

To get the SMC H.B 

It makes no difference rather or not the veteran is P&T  it may help some,  but they usually they go by the severity of the veterans condition to = meaning if its chronic/static  and is expected to be that way the rest of his/her lifetime.

SMC is awarded in addition to the basic rates of compensation payable under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities.

Now with the TDIU P&T they usually state that on the award letter  if the'' condition is static /chronic and is expected to last the rest of the veterans life time'' and no future exams schedule .

Also with a Veteran that has the TDIU P&T He/she Can't leave home for work..so this makes him HB. (HOUSE BOUND) and they infer the SMC   H.B....But as Ms Berta mention in her post they don't always do that...the Veteran can request SMC S  H.B. if they didn't award it &  if he meets the SMC Criteria.

And of course there is the other separate rating off the 100% rating as Ms Berta mention in her post above  if the veteran is rated 100% and has another rating separate from his original 100% rating  and this separate rating is 60% or higher then this qualifies him/her for SMC..Depending on the severity  as how much up the SMC LATTER is awarded.

Edited November 12, 2020 by Buck52

[Buck52]

Mr Cue  may have an arguable point here/ unless the regulations were changed. as how the SMC is infrared?

HERE IS THE WAY THEY RATED MY CLAIM  BACK IN 2002

I was TDIU P&T  AT 90%   WHY THEY NEVER GAVE ME THE SCHEDULER 100% IS ANYBODY'S GUESS?

BUT NEVERTHELESS.

I was 90% TDIU P&T  For about 13 years paid at the 100%rate....>   and then I filed a new claim for MH (CHRONIC PTSD) & Given a 70%  Service Connected rating. 

OK what they did for me  I NEVER got the SMC -S for the TDIU P&T back in 2002 because I could not leave home for work. (MAYBE SOME ONE MISSED UP BACK THEN ? 2002..I NEVER NEW BACK THEN WHAT I KNOW NOW  SO HINDSIGHT 20/20 

  It wasn't until I was rated the 70% for the PTSD 14 YEARS LATER...When they gave me the 70% for the PTSD   THEY ALSO GAVE ME SMC S HOUSE BOUND. AND K for E.D.

Their reason for this is   in the CFR's  it says that if a Veteran has a 100% rating OR TDIU P&T   AND HAS ANOTHER SEPARATE RATING   RATED AT 60% OR HIGHER  THEN THE VETERAN WILL BE GIVEN THE SMC-S

So I am thinking this is why they never infrred the SMC back when I first got the TDIU P&T IN 2002  I HAD NO SEPARATE RATING RATED AT 60% AND HIGHER.

if a Veteran can be infrred the SMC when he is first rated or infrred the TDIU P&T With no future exams and his status is that his service connected condition is not expected to improve in his/her life time...yeah I had that in my  TDIU Award letter  but was never infrred the SMC back then,

Maybe I should have  because I could not leave home for work.   BUT I GOT THE SMC S H.B. WHEN I GOT THE 70% PTSD RATING.ABOUT 5 YEARS AGO.

Remember the case for Howell v Nicholson   TDIU CASE  VETERANS ARE CONFINED TO THEIR HOME AND CAN NOT LEAVE HOME FOR WORK.

SO IF THEY ARE INFRRING THE SMC-S WHEN A VETERAN IS AWARDED THE TDIU P&T NOWDAYS  Mr Cue has a legitimate fight   But *note* they may not had this regulation '' Howell v Nicholson''  back when Mr Cue first got his TDIU?? this regulation was dated OR  came into effect on O3,/23/,2006

Howell v. Nicholson, Mar 23, 2006, 19 Vet.App. 535

So if Mr Cue Missed the boat like I did and was awarded the TDIU BEFORE  ''Howell v Nicholson   was put into regulation? 

However Unless they use Mr Howell date when he first filed his letter back in 2000

''In August 2000, the RO construed Mr. Howell’s letter as a claim for SMC benefits based on his being permanently housebound in addition to his claim for SMC benefits based on the need for aid and attendance, and it denied the claims. Mr. Howell filed a Notice of Disagreement with the RO’s decision.

and won Howell v. Nicholson, Mar 23, 2006, 19 Vet.App. 535

This is why I believe I never recieved the SMC-S H.B. BACK IN 2002  When I was awarded the TDIU P&T ON May 7th 2002

But its certainly un to Mr Cue if he wants them to reopen his claim and fight them on this SMC -S  homebound,  if he wins  then he is setting in high pure white cotton  and pretty sizeable amount of Retro Owed to him.

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Buck52

[Mr cue]

I Never response to this buck. Smh.

 You get my issue. Nobody else see it.

Well the court remand  my cases for early effective date for smc s which has open this can of worms now for them buck.

 

I am waiting to see what they do this time.

 

I was also tdiu 60 pt 2001 based One condition. 

If 2006 howell came out

a lot of veterans should be granted smc s by the date of the decision 

Va did not inferr it for them

That all I been pointing out.

Now the catch is tdiu had to be based one one condition. Is were I am a little confused.

I didn't think it make a different like u stated and the reg is not been able to leave one home for an income.

I take that as all veteran who are award tdiu because you can't work or should I say can't leave your house for a income.

Should be granted tdiu smc permanently housebound. 

 

 

 

 

[Buck52]

Yes I agree  ,broncovet mention this about when a veteran can't leave home for work  rather he is IU or 100%scheduler  they should infer the SMC S H.B.

In my case I never caught that but I possibly could agure the fact they should have gave me the SMC S H.B. when I was awarded the TDIU P&T.  BACK IN  MAY 7TH 2003  BACK DATED MY EED TO DEC 20TH 2002  BECAUSE I COULD NOT LEAVE HOME FOR WORK.

Now as it stands now  a 100% SCHEDULER rating   or IU  AND FILE FOR A SEPERATE & DISTINK   CLAIM AND RATED 60% OR HIGHER Veterans should be inferred the SMC S H.B.

IF I WAS YOU Mr Cue  I would appeal and request the SMC S H.B. be awarded to you when you was awarded the TDIU P&T. WHAT  EVER THAT DATE WAS?  USEING THE HOWELL/NICKELSON RULING. YOU STAND TO GET SOME SIZEABLE RETRO IF THEY DO THAT.

Or Ask for a complete historic Audit of your claim.  see if they will find where you should have been inferred the SMC S H.B.?

[Buck52]

TDIU IS BASED ON THE VETERANS SERVICE CONNECTED CONDITIONS THAT RENDERS HIM UNEMPLOYABLE.

MY CASE IT WA SMY PROFOUND HEARING LOSS  SERVICE CONNECTED AND WAS GIVEN A  0% RATING AT FIRST  AND THROUGH YEARS OF APPEALS AFTER BEING RATING FROM 0% TO 50% WITHIN A YEARS TIME  SOMETHING DON'T LOOK RIGHT WITH THIS PICTURE  HOW CAN A VETERAN GO FROM 0% .S.C. TO A 50% S.C.  RATING...THEY SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST RATED MY HEARING LOSS AT 50% THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

ANYWAY I COULD NOT DO ANY TYPE WORK DUE TO  S.C.MY PROFOUND LOSS OF HEARING  I APPEALED AND THEY USED A PRIVATE SPECIALIST IMO Dr.TEST/ REPORT ON MY LOSS OF HEARING AND GAVE ME ANOTHER INCREASE  OF  30% AND  10% FOR TINITUS AT A 90% COMBIED RATING   THIS IS WHAT THEY BASED MY TDIU P&T FROM.

YEARS LATER 2014 I FILED A PTSD CLAIM AND GOT 70% SERVICE CONNECTED RATING AND THE RATER CAUGHT IT  ...> IU/P&T AND A SEPERATE RATING OF 60% OR HIGHER  THAT MADE ME MEET THE SMCS H.B. Criteria...why I did not get it it back in 2002 is anybody's guess?

but I got it now...and I'm ok with it.   I am just tired fighting the VA....GETTING TO OLD TO SPEND THE $$ ANYWAYZ.  eh!

Edited April 23, 2021 by Buck52

[Mr cue]

Yea my case when to the cavc now it back at bva an now with the judge.

This is the cavc remand hard to paste it all. But it's remand to address the effective date.

 

Given this disposition, the Court need not address any additional arguments, which could 
not result in a remedy greater than remand. In accordance with Kutscherousky v. West, 
12 Vet.App. 369, 372-73 (1999) (per curiam order), Mr. is free to submit any additional 
arguments and evidence on remand, including his assertion that VA failed to obtain relevant 
independent living program records and any other arguments raised in his briefs to this Court. The 
Board must consider any such evidence or argument submitted. See Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 
529, 534 (2002). The Court reminds the Board that "[a] remand is meant to entail a critical 
examination of the justification for the [Board's] decision," Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 394, 
397 (1991), and must be performed in an expeditious manner in accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 7112.
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the foregoing, the portion of the January 30, 2020, Board decision 
finding that Mr.October 2018 NOD did not encompass that portion of the July 5, 2018, 
rating decision granting a 70% evaluation, but no higher, for a psychiatric disorder is REVERSED
and the matter is REMANDED for further adjudication; the portions of the January 30, 2020, 
Board decision denying an effective date before May 9, 2018, for the grant of SMC and entitlement 
to SMC in excess of the housebound rate, from May 9 to July 17, 2018, and at the aid-and-
attendance rate from that point are SET ASIDE and the matters are REMANDED for further 
development, if necessary, and readjudication consistent with this decision; and the balance of the 
appeal is DISMISSED.