Here is the bva decision on my effective dates for smc s and l

[Mr cue]

Ok here it is and I can't believe this

Ok let start with do u see that nothing is address before 2018.

We understand smc Is effective by the record and granted by the record.

Ok. The court set a side the effective dates an explain to the va to address early time period.

Not done because they change the court remand order to granted effective dates in first instance.

So now I am back at the court to appeal the same effective dates the court set a side.

Ok. I apply for smc s under Howell v Nicholson.

It is never address I even got denied because I can travel medical appointments.

The same reason Howell was denied smh.

Last I had a judge remand the cavc.

That a different judge remand it again.

Than a different judge just made the decision.

All in six months I guess the judge who was handling the remand st first retire than the one who remand again retir.

Because this is the only way you have 3 different judges on a cavc remand.

Ain't no 2 bva judge's retire In.6 months of handling my cavc remand.

Here the decision I will.ein st the court just made.they are playing all these games.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Berta]

MY SMC CUE was awarded because the established medical evidence on a posthumous rating sheet should have caused VA to consider SMC.

I filed CUE on their lack of proper consideration of SMC and used 38 CFR 4.6 plus the actual SMC regulations.

When the VA fails to conider SMC and the established medical evidence warrants it, like John mentioned, they can CUE themselves to make it right.

But that means someone at the RO who knows the SMC regulations has properly addressed the claim

 

[pwrslm]

Did the Judges order address the 2001 back date of EED and if so, exactly what was said? If he did, and cited precedent/CFR/USC data, we could research that to check it. The wording in both the claim and decision is very important because if an omission occurred it can be addressed. Bertha knows more about this than anyone else here IMO.

If you worded the claim improperly, you can bring it up again in a new claim, however, if the decision omitted to address it, they should be able to CUE themselves.

If an error was made at the CAVC, doesn't it appeal to federal appeals courts? An appeal would require the CAVC to address the opposing argument and they would either agree and grant the EED or oppose it and present reasoning behind it for a higher appeal. This level of appeals is completely outside of the VA system, so it is a Federal Court. The CAVC would be certain to cross its Ts and dot every i at that point. Going at it without a lawyer might not be the best move at this level also.

Filing CUE on this issue would be the last opportunity to correct the problem as well. The courts would be able to reject any further claims on EED if they denied a CUE. It would be the end after CUE. 

[Mr cue]

Here go the court remand.

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-andattendance 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. 

 

Do u see were the judge set a side the effective dates they granted.

The board got the remand from the court and change the cavc remand.

They remand the effective dates to be granted In the first instance.

That is volating a cavc remand

And to try and cover it up they remove the effective dates  from the cavc remand docket.

And put them in the new appeal system smh without me even check the box to opt in.

The board try to say I didn't appeal the adjustment disorder and the court reverse that.

And I just got the denied for the effective dates and they address the same effective dates I appeal to the court.

They will not use my independent living records or even address it for the effective dates for smc l.

Now when I was in ch-31  they address that for tdiu.

I am just get upset that I have to go threw all this because they never inffered smc for me in 25 years of being tdiu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr cue]

On 11/30/2021 at 8:14 AM, Berta said:

I filed CUE on their lack of proper consideration of SMC and used 38 CFR 4.6 plus the actual SMC regulations.

Berta I have been trying to find a copy of your smc cue.

Can u post it again.

 

 

[Berta]

I will try to find it here- 

but can you give us the BVA docket # again-

After the date 21 on the Dockets there are 3 more numbers with a hyphen and then 3 more.

 

[Mr cue]

Here is the docket number on the decision.

Docket No. 21-00 585 Advanced on the Docket.

I really think it not even a valid decision.

Because it was remove form the cavc remand docket number and change to this one.

Plz let me no if this is even a valid docket number.