I think waiting on a decision letter might be worst than the process

[Mr cue]

Man this sit around waiting on a letter is mess with me I ain't call in two days.

I feel I am upset my self for nothing then ppl ain't going to say anything.

I keep looking on ebenfits trying to figure out what they granted. Smh.

I can't get happy because last time the judge switch one month of smc s to smc l.

I got 300.00 retro lol.

I keep try to break it down there was only two issue left under the cavc remand docket.

Smc o and r and loss of use under smc benfits smc m.

Now they remand the loss of use for six months they comp exam shopp it I refuse there exam.

I already had a favorable  specialized loss of use comp exam done by the VA.

Anyway the soc on address this.

Not the smc o and r remand by the court.

So my thought is it the smc r or o.

 Lol.

All this in my head when they could of just put the letter for the smc.

Ok I done venting again lol

 

 

 

 

[Berta]

Mr CUE, I have no idea at all if Ken is going to formally represent you-

He will let you know.

We basically only  discussed Howell and I thanked him for any help he can give to you.

He sees Howell in a different way than I do-

 

 

[Mr cue]

34 minutes ago, broncovet said:

Dont try to tell Ken Carpenter how to practice Veterans law, I would be better off telling Tiger Woods how to play Golf.  Ken Carpenter has forgotten more Veterans law than many people, including attorneys, know.  

We're did I say I was try to tell him about the law.

Now if I want to give a lawyer 30% of my retro if I accept a lawyer to represent me a bva is my choice.

Now as far as lawyers get pay they get paid by the cavc. Not me.

They bill the program.

If that was what you was try to say.

I respect  Ken and he is the best I have been doing this since 2000.

I know who he is and how the VA handle him.

I would love for him to take my case at the court.

I would be big for all veterans.

But if I get a remand do I want to give 30% to the fight.

With the best lawyer in the business.

 

[Mr cue]

I never said he was going to take the case.

He has to take it to the firm first.

An yes I spoke to him about my case.

Not just Howell v Nicholson

I would like him to take the case and he will get my record from the VA for the court cases. If he chooses to take the case.

I am talk about if I want him to fight at the bva also.

Once I get it remand or if he do it at the court

This were the problem is not the court.  

It 30% for any lawyer not just him to represent you at the bva.

that is what I am talk about

 

 

 

[Rivet62]

1 hour ago, john999 said:

Heck yeah,  In Tampa where I live the inflation rate is just about 10%. 

If you're in quicksand then you need to get out of the quicksand while you can comfortably.  Don't wait, like me, and let it swallow you until there's no getting out because then you're just going down, and you'll experience first-hand that the bottom that you think is bottom is not quite the bottom.  You can't hope for luck because there is none. The bottom for me was couch surfing without the couch, and no wheels on top of not being able to walk. The bottom was hoping to make $5 a day and maybe getting that twice a week.

BTW folks, I was never an addict or substance abuser... just disabled and it caught up with me.

Moving this topic to private messaging.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Rivet62
Don't want to hijack the thread

[Rivet62]

59 minutes ago, Berta said:

He sees Howell in a different way than I do-

Maybe he sees it in ways that are only reasonably attainable? Or he sees it in a totally different way? Maybe he sees it as having a different theoretical foundation of law?

Who knows.

There have been times in my life where I thought I had a slam dunk case (not VA related) but was set straight by attorneys who saw otherwise. I was never one to win millions of dollars because hot coffee spilled in my lap. Remember that famous lawsuit against McDonalds? Things that have occurred in my life where there was real serious injury (happened to a family member) were just brushed off by attorneys, and not because it lacked money if we were to win...just different thinking. Who knows..sigh.

[Mr cue]

Ok listen my case has alot going on but I will try to explain what it is I want answer by the court.

On just this issue.

If the court address that been confine to one home is been housebound by fact.

Than they address what been confine to one home means.

Not been able to leave one home to make a income.

Than they even when as far as to say what Congress intended was when they made the law for smc s.

For veterans who as a result of there disabilities can leave there home to make a income.

So to me veterans who are tdiu and it based on one condition should be granted smc s. Housebound by fact.

Because they are not able to leave there home to work or make a income.

That it that all I have been saying.

My First decision told me it is irrelevant that I have been tdiu 25 year. Can make this up.

Next it was your tdiu is based off all your conditions.smh

The last one was denied because I can travel to medical appointments. Lol

Now I am back at the court to have it address again.

And Mr Carpenter was the lawyer in the Howell v Nicholson case.

So yes I want him to fight the case at the court but I will continue on my own if need be.

That is it that is all.

I am waiting on the decision for loss of use and smc r and o.

One got granted one got denied.

And I can't see or tell which one.

Because the one denied will be join my other issue at the court.

I not longer have any issues at the bva or ro.

They are all appeals to the court now.

I just don't trust the VA I feel they are still playing and the granted is going to be something else.

The letter should be here in by Wednesday. If not I will just have it fax.

I was really just venting on this post.

 

Because the meaning of the term “substantially confined” is ambiguous and there is no regulatory interpretation, “the Court must determine the meaning” of the term “and the Board’s obligation” thereunder. Thompson v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 169, 175 (1995); see also Jackson and Cropper, both supra. The Secretary submits that the clear implication of this term is that the requirement that one be “substantially confined” is met when the
claimant is restricted to his house except for medical treatment purposes. The Secretary, citing to Senate Report No. 1745 (June 27, 1960), notes that in passing section 1114(s) Congress intended to provide additional compensation for veterans who were unable to overcome their particular disabilities and leave the house in order to earn an income as opposed to an inability to leave the house at all.