Just need to vent again

[Mr cue]

Well i have been at peace. The lawyer call me a talk to me about every move on my case.

We talk about law and he address by issues to the court. Can't ask for more.

I don't like that the VA lawyers which are about 5 on 3 cases refuse to address them or do a joint remand.

So I feel this is going always to the judge again.

They refuse to address merging the case together.

To me hoping we mess up. Smh.

Well I am at the waiting stage again.

Telephone conference April 22.

VA brief due April 26

An one case is just getting to were they have to give the lawyer the record.

So next month I should get some type answer.

 

 

 

 

[Mr cue]

Update.

Well the judge is final  about to rule on the motion to consolidate the cases back together.

But they let the case for the effective dates for smc s and l to continue by it self.

 

Well today that case got assigned to the judge.

I think this is a good thing 

The Howell v Nicholson issue is in this case.

They already offer smc l and half from 2014-2018.

But the evidence go back to 2001.

The smc s for housebound by fact they are calling it a harmless error because they didn't address it. Smh.

I can't make this up.

Because I was only eligible for smc s from when I apply and got Grant the extra 60%.

Basically they don't want to address the Howell v Nicholson percendent in my case.

Housebound by fact.

Because that evidence go back to 1993

So now it with the judge an we will see what the outcome is.

The fight continues

 

 

 

 

[john999]

Keep at it my friend.  I think you will win in the end. You are fighting for all of us.

[Mr cue]

42 minutes ago, john999 said:

Keep at it my friend.  I think you will win in the end. You are fighting for all of us.

 

I had a talk with the my lawyer this week if the court remand it  will not be a percendent.

He told me he would love to take it that way but it will prolong things.

So I really think it will be remand to never be seen again.

Just like Howell v Nicholson.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[broncovet]

I think Berta and I suggested that Howell Vs Nicholson was a remand, and does not set a precedent.  

Remember, a remand does not grant benefits, but acknowledges VA made an error.  It sends it back to lower court (that is, the BVA) to correct that  legal error and readjuticate it.  

     The BVA has a choice..either grant benefits, or Correct the legal error.  The remand is not an order to grant benefits, but rather to grant benefits OR fix the legal error and readjuticate.  

      Some remands result in additional benefits, others do not.  

One person said this requires VA to grant the benefits, OR think up another crafty excuse to fix the error and still conjure up another excuse to deny.  

     There is "a lot at stake" with Nicholson.  VA does not want to have to pay EVERY TDIU Vet SMC S.  So, here is the drill:

      The VA "may cave" and give you your benefits, but they want an "out"...so they dont have to give EVERY Veteran similar benefits in the same situation.  

      In other words, the Va may give you cigarettes, but they wont give you matches to burn their barn down also.  

      But, they arent gonna give you cigarettes unless they have to.  Remember, the VA has about 500 attorneys whose only job is to see to it you get the lowest amount of benefits possible.  

 

[Mr cue]

They are try everything in there power not to address it. Here is the VA lawyer response.

Now it was a harmless error not to address it.

Smc is a informal claim lol it should have been inferred.

These are the games I am still playing with them.

 

The Board Provided Adequate Reasons or Bases As to SMC

 

Housebound and the Court Should Affirm This Part of the Decision

 

 

 

 

 

Next, Appellant argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases as to SMC at the housebound rate. (App. Br. at 13-15). However, the Board provided adequate reasons or bases, and the Court should affirm this part of the decision.

 

Appellant’s effective date for SMC at the housebound rate is the same as his date of claim: May 2018. (R. at 3). The record reflects that, in May 2018, Appellant filed a claim seeking SMC along with service connection for a mood disorder and depression. (R. at 2165). In this regard, the Board found that “the record indicates his eligibility for statutory housebound status arose due to service connection for adjustment disorder being granted from May 9, 2018” and “as of

 

May 9, 2018, the Veteran had one disability rated as totally disabling.” (R. at 8). Thus, as the Board found, the facts in this case do not support an effective date prior to the May 2018 date of claim. (R. at 9); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(a)(1). So while Appellant argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for denying SMC at the housebound rate because it did not define the relevant term of “substantially confined” (App. Br. at 13-15), such an error (which the Secretary does not concede) would be at worst harmless error, as Appellant cannot receive an effective date earlier than May 9, 2018, for SMC at the housebound rate. See Lamb v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 227, 235 (2008) (holding that there is no prejudicial error when a remand for a decision on the merits would serve no useful purpose). Crucially, Appellant solely focuses this part of his brief on the Board’s lack of definitions and fails to explain how any such definition could result in an earlier effective date. Hilkert, 12 Vet.App. at 151. Thus, Appellant’s argument lacks legal and factual merit and should be rejected by the Court.

 

The Court should therefore affirm that portion of the Board’s decision in which the Board denied an earlier effective date for SMC at the housebound rate

[Mr cue]

Well woke up early crazy weekend in my city.

Well I am starting to feel the cavc isn't doing there job.

Ok I start this case Dec the court advance it.

I have been asking the bva the cavc merge my appeals  back together.

Well the court didn't address my motion for months pro SE.

So  I hire the lawyer now they ask the lawyer if he wants to merger the appeal back together 2 months After I hire him

Why didn't they do it when I was pro SE and ask the court. Smh

They gave my lawyer 5 days to tell the court if he want to merger them well we said yes.

It been a week and the court still will not address  it even after ordering the lawyer to answer. Smh

I have Never seen anything like this..

The lawyer is like he hasn't either they will not order a phone conference on the last case.

So I guess I will have 3 different case rule on by the bva and court for smc benfits now. One case is with the judge.

One is waiting for the VA brief the other my lawyer is put the our brief In Today.

When they are all intertwined..I will never get a proper decision on my smc benfits 

Sooner or later they will have to say something or why my case was treated this way.

It's like they hope I or the lawyer miss a deadline on a case or something.

Try to handle 3 case at cavc with different due dates and thing have to be done in 7 days 5 day for one case 20days for the other case something has to be put in on a different date for the last case.

Court order on another case It's crazy 

Not many lawyer would do this and when I finish the case I will share his name for others.

I real like the way he is handling every thing.

So we should get some answers soon on something..