Is this typical BVA wording on VA.gov?

[hammerman15]

My question is that this blurb on the VA website doesn't mention my other two parts/items that are a part of this appeal. I have two other issues. Is the entire thing denied? Just this part? Doesn't the judge address all the parts on appeal? 

All 3 issues have been in appeals process since 2010.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and I will answer any questions if I am not asking the right thing.

 

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals sent you a decision on your appeal. Here’s an overview:

Denied

The judge denied the following issue:

• Increased rating, Paralysis of upper radicular group

Please see your decision for more details.

 

This is the entire process that has happened since I filed a claim and for these three issues

 

Currently on appeal

Remand

• 100% rating for individual unemployability
• Service connection, Major depressive disorder
• Increased rating, Limitation of arm motion

VA sent you a claim decision

on May 17, 2010

VA received your Notice of Disagreement

on June 28, 2010

VA sent you a Statement of the Case

on February 02, 2011

VA received your Form 9

on March 03, 2011

VA sent you a Supplemental Statement of the Case

on November 03, 2011

Your appeal was sent to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals

on December 14, 2011

Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision

on March 18, 2016

VA sent you a Supplemental Statement of the Case

on November 17, 2016

Your appeal was returned to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals

on December 19, 2016

Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision

on September 08, 2017

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims made a decision

on December 11, 2018

Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision

on July 11, 2019

VA sent you a Supplemental Statement of the Case

on November 06, 2019

VA sent you a Supplemental Statement of the Case

on November 08, 2019

Your appeal was returned to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals

on December 09, 2019

VA granted one or more issues

on January 03, 2020

VA granted one or more issues

on January 22, 2020

Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision

on April 01, 2020

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims made a decision

on September 09, 2020

VA sent you a Supplemental Statement of the Case

on October 06, 2020

VA sent you a Supplemental Statement of the Case

on November 05, 2020

Your appeal was returned to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals

on December 07, 2020

Your appeals were merged

on January 11, 2021

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims made a decision

on August 30, 2021

Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision

on October 06, 2021

VA sent you a Supplemental Statement of the Case

on December 13, 2021

Your appeal was returned to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals

on January 12, 2022

Your appeals were merged

on January 25, 2022

Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision

on February 11, 2022

Current status

The Board made a decision on your appeal

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals sent you a decision on your appeal. Here’s an overview:

Denied

The judge denied the following issue:

Increased rating, Paralysis of upper radicular group

Please see your decision for more details.

Edited February 16, 2022 by hammerman15
Adding new information

[pacmanx1]

Quote

Is this typical BVA wording on VA.gov?

YES.

1 hour ago, hammerman15 said:

Doesn't the judge address all the parts on appeal?  SEE THE REMAND

It appears that the BVA has remanded several issues back to the RO for more development and consideration. This simply means that you can still win your current Appeal/Remand for TDIU, Depression and an Increased rating in limitation of arm motion.

Not saying what will actually happen because the RO can do just about anything but be prepared if the RO request more C & P exams.

 

Your Official BVA Decision letter should explain in detail why they denied and remanded your issues. 

Edited February 16, 2022 by pacmanx1

[Rivet62]

1 hour ago, hammerman15 said:

VA sent you a claim decision

on May 17, 2010

To...

 

1 hour ago, hammerman15 said:

Board of Veterans’ Appeals made a decision

on February 11, 2022

Current status

The Board made a decision on your appeal

The Board of Veterans’ Appeals sent you a decision on your appeal. Here’s an overview:

Denied

The judge denied the following issue:

Increased rating, Paralysis of upper radicular group

Please see your decision for more details.

OMG

[Berta]

Rivet, that is what I just said too -OMG!

But that is the good part about the BVA- remands open the door for more evidence.

And sometimes we can successfully knock down a C & P when a remand calls for a specfic type of doctor to do aother C & P exam. In 2009 I had 3 IMos for my AO DMII death claim and BVA remanded for a third VARO opinion- from a cardio doc but I got an opinion from a PA- and by thn ( thanks to the VA) I had a very good medical background on cardio issues, and endorinology---enough to get the PA oinion disregarded by the BVA.They gave it no weight and awarded.

 

We often recommend IMO/IMEs but sometimes a vet does not need to incur  that expense.

Many years ago the term " fishing expedition" was used a lot by claimants- when they felt VA was fishing around for doctors who would deny the claim.- We don't need to use that term anymore.

We have all the tools we need. 

The BVA still refers to a "fishing expedition" in many decisions. such as :

(This is an excellent inservice chemical exposure claim:)

The decisions refers to Dr C.L.B.'s IMO/IME opinion - I am  99% sure that is Dr. Bash.It is exactly the way he combats RO decisions.

"ORDER

Service connection for a skin disability, to include eczema dermatitis, xerosis cutis, melanocytic nevi, rosacea, and hypovitaminosis D, claimed as due to in-service chemical exposure, is granted.

Service connection for anemia, claimed as due to in-service chemical exposure, is granted.

Service connection for an ulcer, claimed as due to in-service chemical exposure,  is granted."

Also this is why I recommend getting 201 files ( inservice peronnel record) as well as SMRs from NARA:

A"s an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran’s SPRs show that she was likely exposed to harmful chemicals during her military service and medical records show a diagnosis of anemia during the appeal period.  The only matter still in question is whether there is a medical link between the Veteran’s anemia and her military service.  "

The veteran did her homework , and submitted some very good medical treatises, abstracts, etc, and invested in a strong medical opinion because she knew she had a very valid claim.

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files3/A21005249.txt

And :

"At this time, the Board declines to remand for an additional opinion as such would resemble a fishing expedition for negative evidence, which, in view of the available medical evidence, is not necessary.  Indeed, obtaining such additional evidentiary development in this instance would only result in additional delay with no benefit to the Veteran.  Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994); VAOPGCPREC 5-04, 69 Fed. Reg. 59,989 (2004).  As such, the Board will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and find that the Veteran’s skin disabilities are related to her in-service exposure to harmful chemicals.  Therefore, service connection for a skin disability is warranted."

  
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Berta
CTS

[broncovet]

As always, as frustrating as it is, you will have to wait for the decision.  "What ebenefits (or VA.gov) says, plus 10 dollars will get you a cup of coffee in most places in town.  

The decision letter should give a reasons and bases, and you need to read that carefully.  Lawyers often appeal to the CAVC "based on an inadequate or missing reasons and bases", and usually win a remand at cavc.  The remand is important, because it always gives you a chance to submit an IMO/IME "to fix the real reason(s) the board denied you".  The real reasons are almost always "written in a code" to confuse Vets, so they dont understand the reason.  

Often, it means there is an inadequate/missing or incomplete nexus.  Diagnosis and in service event are rather straight forward, you either have them or not.  

But the nexus can be wishy washy.  For example doctors some times try to help you and say things like, "your (condition) could have been caused by a fall in military service".  That is always a denial.  "Could", "may", 'might", could possibly are all speculative.  The doctor needs to state there is a 51 percent chance ("at least as likely as not") for a valid nexus.  Further, the board needs to be convinced "the examiner" was competent.  A friend of yours who has a phd (doctors degree) in "exercise science" is not competent to opine your knees were damaged by jumps in thee service, for example.  This would take a medical professional experienced in diagnosis and treatment of knee conditions to render an opinion acceptable to the court.  And, the burden is on the Veteran to demonstrate this examiner is competent.  The doc needs to submit his CV, detailing his in the field experience and education.  The examiner is acting as an "expert witness"...and he needs to be an expert to make an expert opinion.  

The examiner must also state "why" he opines that your "knee condition" is at least as likely as not due to your jumps out of airplanes in the service.  (Yes it should be obvious, but dont expect VA to make "obvious connections".   It has to be documented, that is, a medical opinion by a competent medical professional)

I noticed one issue is tdiu.  Take note, here, I have been down that road for 17 years.  Your doctor can say, "the Veteran is at least as likely as not unable to maintain SGE due to (SC conditions) and it still gets denied.  Why?  Because your doctor can not or did not opine you cant do ANY job, but just your present job.   It takes a voc rehab specialist to opine something similar to:

"This Veteran has been shown to be unable to maintain SGE in his present job.  I have counseled the Veteran, and, given his circcumstances, he is a very poor candidate for retraining into another sedentary position because (then he needs to list your reasons why you cant be retrained to a sedentary position such as a computer programmer if you have bad knees.  For those reasons, this Veteran is unable to maintain any position, given that his PTSD would affect any of his cow orkers in a negative way, something almost no employers wwant to accept. "...something like this...using your disabilities and circumstances, of course, not my "general examples".  

 

In my case, I was denied tdiu, by the board (after VARO denial of course) and got a lawyer to appeal reasons and bases to the cavc.  The lawyer "won". a remand, to the board (to correct the R eason and basis errrors).  The lawyer advised me I needed "an imo from a voc rehab specialist" to win it, upon remand.  

The lawyer even gave me the name of a voc rehab specialist, very familiar with this issue.  I hired him to do an IMO, paid him I think it was $600, and poof, I was awarded full benefits upon the remand.  Now the great news.  

My attorney fees were paid by eaja..I paid zero.  He advised me, further, that I did not need "attorney" representation at the board, but rather needed an IMO with "new and relevant evidence".  

You see, the Board decision almost never says, "you need an IMO from a voc rehab specialist" to win this.  Nope.  They say this "in code", for example, they may say that the Veteran has not demonstrated he could not perform the duties of another job type. But the lawyer kneww how "to decipher the code".  

When you get your decision letter, if you post it (absent your name and other identifiers), a experienced hadit member may be able to help you decode it.  

You see, Res judicata is in play here.  And, an average Veteran does not know res judicata from chevron deference.  Res means that, once an issue has been decided you cant just go back with the same evidence and expect a different result from a different judge.  

Quote

res ju·di·ca·ta

/rēz ˌjo͞odiˈkätə,ˈrās/

 

noun

LAW

 

1. a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.

If not for Res, then a veteran could simply keep applying until he got a Veteran friendly judge, clogging up the system for other Veterans.  

[Rivet62]

2 hours ago, Berta said:

The veteran did her homework , and submitted some very good medical treatises, abstracts, etc, and invested in a strong medical opinion because she knew she had a very valid claim.

https://www.va.gov/vetapp21/Files3/A21005249.txt

And :

"At this time, the Board declines to remand for an additional opinion as such would resemble a fishing expedition for negative evidence, which, in view of the available medical evidence, is not necessary.  Indeed, obtaining such additional evidentiary development in this instance would only result in additional delay with no benefit to the Veteran.  Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994); VAOPGCPREC 5-04, 69 Fed. Reg. 59,989 (2004).  As such, the Board will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and find that the Veteran’s skin disabilities are related to her in-service exposure to harmful chemicals.  Therefore, service connection for a skin disability is warranted."

Thank you for this. I am on a journey.