HLR or back to board

[SPO]

As of today, my appeal was officially closed.  Overall I won.  I was granted 100% P&T, even after some additional exams.  However they effective date only went back to July 2020 (date of my last c&p),  I originally submitted in November 2018.  So missing close to 2 years of pay.   The supplemental claim which this appeal was based on did grant me a couple items, which were dated all the way back to November 2018.   That decision stated this was because the claim was continuously pursued. My appeal was filed less than a month after the supplemental decision, so in a timely manner. This appeal implementation decision did not use that logic and decided the date of the c&p was the first time they had evidence (I was given 0% rating from November 2018 to July 2020 on most items).  Now the question is do I HLR and try to argue they used 2 different methods to determine effective date based on the same evidence, or take it right back to the board?  one guy at DAV said take it to the board so they don’t mess with anything else, but I’m not sure if there is any truth in that.

[pacmanx1]

Flip a coin, it is really a toss-up. The HLR can award the correct effective date but will they. If the deny your request, you can still file a claim back to the BVA. With the HLR you never know until after you get your decision, and it can take between three months to a year or so then waiting for the BVA again about a little over a years’ time. Going straight to the BVA, you will most likely get a better result, but it still may take a little over a years’ time.

 

[Whodat]

That's a tough one. In 2018, you probably did get service connected, but by the exam that was performed at that time was only rated at 0. Now afterwards, you had another exam, maybe ie, you met rom that qualify for 10, they used the most recent exam.  Did the first examiner uses a goniometer or eyeball method? What about the second exam?

You need to do some homework. Study all of your c&p exams. 

[Mr cue]

I agree with pacmanx.

24 minutes ago, SPO said:

 one guy at DAV said take it to the board so they don’t mess with anything else, but I’m not sure if there is any truth in that.

Now that were it can get tricky. They can remand it an they still can play with your rating not likely but there is a Chance.

So you have to look at it from all angles.

? Is why not waiting until you have 5 years rating protection.

Than cue the decision for the earlier effective date. Money is always on the table

I am a veteran who Believe in protecting myself first

100% is a liveable income but 2 year retro is a lot of cash to.

 

 

[pacmanx1]

21 minutes ago, Mr cue said:

? Is why not waiting until you have 5 years rating protection.

Than cue the decision for the earlier effective date. Money is always on the table

Somethings have change, under the AMA program, an appeal straight to the BVA should take no more than a years' time but due to covid it may take a little longer but nowhere near the legacy program. Most important, it is illegal for the VA to reduce a veteran's rating while in the appeal status, it is called a ("Mischaracterization of issue(s) on appeal"). I just went through this and the BVA made to RO restore my rating that they improperly reduced. Claims on appeal have their own protection.

Edited February 3 by pacmanx1

[Mr cue]

9 minutes ago, pacmanx1 said:

Mischaracterization of issue(s) on appeal). I just went through this and the BVA made to RO restore my rating that they improperly reduced. Claims on appeal have their own protection

I have seen this but never really got into it.

With that been said I would go the higher level review than

An see if they get it right and if they play with the rating u got this law or reg to fight it at the bva or court.

You have some angles to think about.

[SPO]

The question is then either way.  How to word the argument to prove continuously pursued is the right way.   I mean they used that same evidence to set the effective date all the way back on the supplemental claim.
FYI the exam in 2018 was complete garbage.  Denied everything and they did not use a goniometer. I wrote a statement in the supplemental explaining all the issues.