Wrong effective date?

[allansc2005]

Got a veteran who applied for and was granted SC for PTSD; applied in December 2020, granted March 2021.

Veteran was paid back pay to December 2020, however, the vet was already denied SC PTSD back in 2009.

So should he have gotten back pay to 2009, or was the VA right in granting him only 3 months of backpay?

 

Thanks,

Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!!

 

 

 

 

 

[Buck52]

ALLAN

As a footnote, veteran has been scheduled for ANOTHER C&P exam relating to the above for what we THINK is to establish an earlier SC date stemming from our Supplemental Claim.

Allan if your Vet has seen a Specialist  and it shows he is worse  I'd request them to use the specalist IMO.. SEE WHAT THEY SAY?

[allansc2005]

Buck,

The veteran is already IU, so we aren't seeking a higher SC for his PTSD which is 70%. Veteran is also SMC S-2 too. Also note the veteran is maxed out on SMCs, so we aren't concerned about that.

 

What we're doing here is making an argument that the veteran should have been retro back to 2009 because that was the FIRST denial time frame for his PTSD.

In our Supplemental Claim, formerly NOD, we asked that the veteran's retro be taken back to the above mentioned date, and we provided 2 medical opinions that express "more likely than not.." that the veteran's PTSD began in 1978(see my last posts).

 

We submitted medical evidence not previously available to the veteran, basically claiming(without mentioning) a Fenderson case.

As you know, the VA almost always gets effective dates wrong, and many vets don't even realize they are leaving BIG money on the table, but not veterans I help!

Here tonight or tomorrow, as requested by Berta, I will post the veteran's denial letter for PTSD back in 2010(he applied in 2009)-redacted of course, and let you guys take a look at the VA flubb up on this man's effective date.

Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!

 

 

[pacmanx1]

Quote

allansc2005

As a footnote, veteran has been scheduled for ANOTHER C&P exam relating to the above for what we THINK is to establish an earlier SC date stemming from our Supplemental Claim.

Be forewarned that this new C & P exam may not be for an EED but for a current evaluation. It is possible that the VARO will schedule the veteran for updated medical exam/opinion and completely ignore his request for an EED.

[allansc2005]

pacmanx1, our Supplementary Claim asked for an earlier date, and nothing else.

 

As per Berta's request, I have uploaded here the veteran's redacted ORIGINAL denial letter for PTSD.

Please see my previous posts for more details about this claim.

Document_2021-06-02_190329.pdfBerta-2.pdf Document_2021-06-02_190124.pdfBerta-1.pdf

[pacmanx1]

Yes, it is still what the VA ask the C & P examiner to evaluate, they overlook the request for an EED.  Keep in mind that the veteran may still have to file an appeal to the BVA to get his benefits.

[Buck52]

22 minutes ago, allansc2005 said:

Buck,

The veteran is already IU, so we aren't seeking a higher SC for his PTSD which is 70%. Veteran is also SMC S-2 too. Also note the veteran is maxed out on SMCs, so we aren't concerned about that.

 

What we're doing here is making an argument that the veteran should have been retro back to 2009 because that was the FIRST denial time frame for his PTSD.

In our Supplemental Claim, formerly NOD, we asked that the veteran's retro be taken back to the above mentioned date, and we provided 2 medical opinions that express "more likely than not.." that the veteran's PTSD began in 1978(see my last posts).

 

We submitted medical evidence not previously available to the veteran, basically claiming(without mentioning) a Fenderson case.

As you know, the VA almost always gets effective dates wrong, and many vets don't even realize they are leaving BIG money on the table, but not veterans I help!

Here tonight or tomorrow, as requested by Berta, I will post the veteran's denial letter for PTSD back in 2010(he applied in 2009)-redacted of course, and let you guys take a look at the VA flubb up on this man's effective date.

Allan 2-2-0 HOOAH!

 

 

Roger that Allan!!!   I agree they should go back to 2009 at the least  possibly to go back to 1978 (due to facts found ) if you have that evidence?

but they would fight toooth and nail on that  at the CAVC  OR THEY COULD CALL A CUE on them selfs.  but retor back to 2009 looks favoravle to me on the EED.