Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • homepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Can appealing a decision backfire?

Rate this question


mb76

Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • Moderator

NO. This lie is pontificated by:

1.  VA executives who want Vets money for parties, and family contractors they intend to give lucrative contracts to.  They want the Vet to "settle in" to poverty so VA execs can enjoy a lavish lifestyle on money intended for Vets.  They want em to scared to apply for an increase, and threaten Vets with horsehair like that.  

2. Lazy VSO's who dont want to work. 

3.  Fearful Veterans who beleived one of the above, who are unfamiliar with the regulations and/or facts.  

Look in the criteria for decrease:

"Does it say ANYWHERE, when the Veteran applies for and increase, decrease him instead?  NO.   Its actually very difficult for VA to reduce you IF YOU ARE P AND T or have been rated 5 years or more.  Yes, they can reduce temporary ratings, without the protections below.  

Instead, you can be reduced if your disabilities "actually improved under ordinary conditions of life", provided that VA give you 60 days notice of a proposed reduction giving you an opportunity for a hearing.  READ the following to see if you meet the criteria for reduction:

Quote
§ 3.344 Stabilization of disability evaluations.

(a) Examination reports indicating improvement. Rating agencies will handle cases affected by change of medical findings or diagnosis, so as to produce the greatest degree of stability of disability evaluations consistent with the laws and Department of Veterans Affairs regulations governing disability compensation and pension. It is essential that the entire record of examinations and the medical-industrial history be reviewed to ascertain whether the recent examination is full and complete, including all special examinations indicated as a result of general examination and the entire case history. This applies to treatment of intercurrent diseases and exacerbations, including hospital reports, bedside examinations, examinations by designated physicians, and examinations in the absence of, or without taking full advantage of, laboratory facilities and the cooperation of specialists in related lines. Examinations less full and complete than those on which payments were authorized or continued will not be used as a basis of reduction. Ratings on account of diseases subject to temporary or episodic improvement, e.g., manic depressive or other psychotic reaction, epilepsy, psychoneurotic reaction, arteriosclerotic heart disease, bronchial asthma, gastric or duodenal ulcer, many skin diseases, etc., will not be reduced on any one examination, except in those instances where all the evidence of record clearly warrants the conclusion that sustained improvement has been demonstrated. Ratings on account of diseases which become comparatively symptom free (findings absent) after prolonged rest, e.g. residuals of phlebitis, arteriosclerotic heart disease, etc., will not be reduced on examinations reflecting the results of bed rest. Moreover, though material improvement in the physical or mental condition is clearly reflected the rating agency will consider whether the evidence makes it reasonably certain that the improvement will be maintained under the ordinary conditions of life. When syphilis of the central nervous system or alcoholic deterioration is diagnosed following a long prior history of psychosis, psychoneurosis, epilepsy, or the like, it is rarely possible to exclude persistence, in masked form, of the preceding innocently acquired manifestations. Rating boards encountering a change of diagnosis will exercise caution in the determination as to whether a change in diagnosis represents no more than a progression of an earlier diagnosis, an error in prior diagnosis or possibly a disease entity independent of the service-connected disability. When the new diagnosis reflects mental deficiency or personality disorder only, the possibility of only temporary remission of a super-imposed psychiatric disease will be borne in mind.

(b) Doubtful cases. If doubt remains, after according due consideration to all the evidence developed by the several items discussed in paragraph (a) of this section, the rating agency will continue the rating in effect, citing the former diagnosis with the new diagnosis in parentheses, and following the appropriate code there will be added the reference “Rating continued pending reexamination ___ months from this date, § 3.344.” The rating agency will determine on the basis of the facts in each individual case whether 18, 24 or 30 months will be allowed to elapse before the reexamination will be made.

(c) Disabilities which are likely to improve. The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply to ratings which have continued for long periods at the same level (5 years or more). They do not apply to disabilities which have not become stabilized and are likely to improve. Reexaminations disclosing improvement, physical or mental, in these disabilities will warrant reduction in rating.

 

Edited by broncovet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Moderator

I don't know about #1 or #2 but ill concur with #3, in that I see a lot of veterans fearful of applying for benefits they are due because of internet scuttlebut and baracks lawyering (other veterans) telling them to 'not poke the bear....' or whatever the phrase is now, and its wrong, and its a detriment only to you, the veteran. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 6/17/2021 at 7:46 AM, brokensoldier244th said:

I see a lot of veterans fearful of applying for benefits they are due because of internet scuttlebut and baracks lawyering (other veterans) telling them to 'not poke the bear....' or whatever the phrase is now, and its wrong, and its a detriment only to you, the veteran. 

It's actual lawyers too. I had one tell me that but looking back I think he just didn't want to put in the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I filed an NOD for an increase within a year.  I had an outside Dr. fill out an IME and DBQ scrutinizing the hell out of the previous VA C&P.  When I got another C&P, I handed her the report.  She was not amused that a Dr. would so harshly scrutinize her colleague.  Bad move on my part (should've kept it on the lowdown and let the rater decide).  She wrote up her DBQ/IME in such a way to get me reduced to zero from 50%.  Stated I was an unreliable reporter (a damn liar in other words). I had to complain to the VARO.  Subsequently, I had two additional C&P's that were heavily in my favor.  I went from 50% to 100% when all was said and done.  When I got my C-file, one of the reports had the bad C&P Dr's report as not making any sense.  In other words, an unreliable reporter (a damn liar).  Hopefully you don't get one of these examiners.

The lesson here, don't piss off your C&P examiners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

El Train

 

               The same thing happened to me.  I had a terribly incompetent and biased C&P exam from a VA doctor.  I had it overturned due to bias.  I got another exam from a doctor who was buddies with the first guy.  Of course, he slamed  me.  This is one more reason I am no fan of the VA.  After that I got three IMO's from various doctors in Tampa.  I won my TDIU claim but it took a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use