Need to vent today

[Mr cue]

Well my mental is everywhere today I am waiting for the VA lawyer to put in there brief to the court.

Could be today or Monday I will be a long weekend smh.

Well after this my lawyer has 10 days to reply an the record of proceeding is due in 7.

So it will be with the judge end of the month.

This has been almost a 4 to 5 year fight for my smc benefits. The 2 nd time at court. Smh.

Now to my beef with the VA.

I have had over 5 comp exams for loss of use and even a specialized loss of use exam. All favorable

The VA refuse to accept any of there exams.

Well the court remand my case an the VA stated my condition improve and they need to order another exam.

Judge stated if I refuse the exam do a report on my record. Smh.

Well the ro held my case for 6 months shopping it to different comp place.

Then turns around an stated they can't do a ace exam it must be a in person exam.

Long story short I withdraw the remand because they were hold my smc o and r which is need for my in home care.

Which the courts bva ro all advance my case because it was case harm to health.

Any way so now I sit here 5 years without my benefits.

Because the VA is choosing to fight because they mess up and owe me years of retro.

I will say I fought for my 8 years retro tdiu and won.

An this fight is the most crazy process I have ever been a part of.

Well we will see in a few weeks how all this will pan out.

An yes I am still fighting the housebound by fact.

Which I feel should have been granted 2001 when I was granted tdiu.

Congress intended for the smc s housebound by fact was for veterans who are not able to leave there home to make a income.

Now the VA doesn't acknowledge this an only grants smc s when a veteran gets the extra 60%

I can't wait to see how the court address this.

Ok I am done I got to get this out my mind I was doing so good. Lol smh

 

.

 

 

 

 

[Mr cue]

Well I need to vent my case is with the cavc judge.

I think I should have a decision in about to more weeks hopefully.

Well anyway come to find out that the VA has left my appeal of mental health from 2003 pending in appeal status.

Well I was granted 70% mental health 2019 by the bva.

Which made the 2003 claim final.

15 year retro. Well they did the same thing with my claim from service that how I was granted 8 year retro tdiu 2001-1993.

Well anyway the bva VA refuse to address the effective date.

Here is the lawyer reply to the issues.

They even try to blame the court for not addressing the effective date smh

THE BOARD WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF APPELLANT’S ADJUSTMENT DISORDER CLAIM. 
 
Appellant asserts that the Board, in the November 22, 2021, decision, failed to address whether an EED is warranted for his service-connected psychiatric disorder.  [App. Br. at 21-22].  Specifically, Appellant argues that his 2018 NOD served to raise the issue of the appropriate effective date for the grant of service connection for his adjustment disorder.  Id.; [R. at 1431-37].  This argument must 
fail. 
This Court, in its January 2021 memorandum decision, held that the August 
2018 NOD “clearly indicated his intent to appeal all issues decided in both July 2018 rating decisions, including the evaluation assigned for his psychiatric disorder.”  [R. at 968 (963-70)].  The decision reversed the Board’s finding that the 
NOD did not encompass that portion of a July 5, 2018, rating decision granting a 70% evaluation for a psychiatric disorder and remanded the issue for further adjudication.  Id.  Nothing in the memorandum decision, to include the opening statement that clearly articulated that the Court was “revers[ing] the Board’s finding that [Appellant’s August] 2018 NOD did not encompass that portion of a July 5, 2018, rating decision granting a 70% evaluation, but no higher, for a psychiatric disorder[,]”  Id. at 912-19) or the NOD, [R. at 1431-37], in any way relates to the issue of obtaining an effective date earlier than the May 2018 date of claim.  
Indeed, this is an issue that Appellant raises for the first time in his initial brief, despite this case previously being before the Court once and the Board multiple times.  See Fugere v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 103, 105 (1990) (“Advancing different arguments at successive stages of the appellate process does not serve the interests of the parties or the Court” because piecemeal litigation hinders the decision making process).  Therefore, the Board had no reason to have adjudicated the effective date based on Appellant’s present theory about the legal effect of lay statements submitted in 2003, which has never before been raised.  Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet.App. 545, 553 (2008) (stating that Board is “not required sua sponte to raise and reject ‘all possible’ theories of entitlement in order to render a valid opinion”), aff’d sub nom. Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d

Ok here is my lawyer reply so I am really stressing about how the judge will handle this.

 

 

 

2. The Board’s November 22, 2021 decision failed to address the effective date of  psychiatric condition claim.

 

 

In his opening brief o argued that the Board failed to address the effective date of his grant of service connection for his psychiatric condition or whether remand was warranted for Regional Office to issue a Statement of the Case regarding the proper effective date. App. Br. at 21-22. The Secretary concedes that this Court’s January 2021 memorandum decision held that o August 2018 NOD “clearly indicated his intent to appeal all issues decided in both his July 2018 rating decisions, including the evaluation assigned for his psychiatric disorder” but argues that nothing in the Court’s decision relates to the issue of obtaining an earlier effective date. Sec. Br. at 16.

However, contrary to the Secretary’s position, nothing in the Court’s January 2021 decision limits the scope of the October 2018 NOD or the July 2018 rating decisions. As conceded by the Secretary, the Court’s 2021 memorandum decision clearly held that o October 2018 NOD clearly indicated his intent to appeal all issues decided in both July 2018 rating decisions, including the evaluation assigned for his psychiatric disorder.” R-968 (emphasis added). The Court’s use of the word “including” merely referenced a nonexhasustive example of an issue within his appeal of “all issues.” See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002).

The Secretary argues that the Board had no reason to adjudicate the effective date of o psychiatric claim. Sec. Br. at 17. However, as noted above, the Court’s

January 2021 decision noted that o acting pro se, intended to appeal all issues in his July 2018 rating decisions. R-968. Thus, “all issues” were placed in appellate status. Therefore, to comply with the Court’s decision, the Board was required to adjudicate on appeal all issues in his July 2018 rating decisions. Jones v. Shinseki, 619 F.3d 1368, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

In fact, the same is true for o September 2003 Statement of the Case (SOC), because he submitted a statement in support of claim disagreeing with the determinations in the SOC during the appeal period, thereby rendering that decision and the underlying claim not final. See R-4088-89. Because all the issues in his September 2003 SOC and July 2018 rating decisions were placed in appellate status only a decision from the Board on all the issues, including the effective dates could have resolved his appeals.

Ok let me go back to relaxing. I just that I can't believe I am going through all this. It crazy 

[Mr cue]

Just venting again

Well here it is my case has been with the judge a month.

Ok last time I was at the court 2019 with the same case pro SE. An the case was expidate I got a judge decision in a little under 3 weeks.

I don't no how to feel with it take this long. I hope the judge is really addressing the case this time.

This is the 2nd time it been with this judge. An the judge expidate it both times.

The judge merger the cases all back with the cavc remand docket number.

After the VA errors of try to turn a cavc remand into 3 different new appeals with different docket numbers. Smh

Maybe the cavc judge will just grant  my issues lol. Anything possible 

Ok I am going to relax.

I am just ready to get this over this is really adding stress to me.

And I still have to fight with the bva and VA again after the court remand.

Smh this why the court should start granting appeals when the evidence is there and in the record.

Because this make no sense how they can just refuse to address issues not address there owe comp exams.

To add years to a appeal 

This will be the 3rd time my case for smc benfits has been with the bva and ro.

An the VA lawyer has already ask for a remand on some of the issues.

So I will be playing more VA games if the judge doesn't put in a very strong order.