Claim remaining pending in appeal status from 2003.

[Mr cue]

Ok I am going to try and explain why this waiting on a judge decision is stressing me out a little.

Ok I apply 2001 for mental health and other things.

Well the VA has once again left my claim in appeal status again.

So any way I reapply in 2018 was granted 70% on appeal by bva a appeals decision that should have made the pending appeal from 2001 final.

Well the VA the board the VA lawyer are saying that they had no reason to address my effective date.

So this is a 18 year errors. Smh.

This is the 2nd time this has happen it is crazy.

So yes I have a real bad trust issue with the VA.

 

This is my lawyer to the court to get it address.

 

 

. 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

[Mr cue]

Man I just can't get this one out my mind.

This is the VA lawyer response to my appeal remaining pending from 2003.

Basically they are telling the court that they limited my appeal on remand and they have no reason to address my effective date.

Even tell the court this is the first time I ask about my effective date issue which is a lie. Many statement in my record me asking them to address it.

Well this is a big issue for me.

They will not even say the appeal was closed 2003.

Because than they will have to explain how it was reopen 2018. Smh.

I just be having to vent this is really get to me again.

Last I am posting for veterans to under same a pending claim an how it can result in many years of retro.

No this isn't moot this would granted smc s back to 2001 maybe even 1993.

Because of the error of leaving my appeal open from service 1993.

Which granted me 8 yrs retro tdiu.

 

 

 

 

 

B. 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 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

[Mr cue]

Well I thought I might share my back door to 20 year retro.

An the court has already stated there is no final decision from 2003 for my mental health.

Here it is 

As for Mr. assertion that the contents of that document indicate that he is entitled to an earlier effective date for service connection for his psychiatric disorder, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider that matter.

The Court's review is limited by statute to timely appeals from final Board decisions taken by claimants who are adversely affected by those decisions. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7272(a), 7266(a); see In re Quigley, 1 Vet.App. 1 (1990). Absent a final Board decision, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal. Breeden v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 475, 477 (2004) (per curiam order).

Here, the only issue adjudicated in the November 2021 Board decision that is the subject of this appeal is the evaluation assigned for Mr.  psychiatric disorder. Consequently, that is the only matter over which this Court holds jurisdiction. If Mr.  believes that he has identified clear and unmistakable error in the rating decision assigning an effective date for service connection for his psychiatric disorder, he may file a motion with the agency of original jurisdiction specifying the nature of that error.

 

So the court has rule there was no final decision an I should do a cue to address my effective date. Win win

 

Ok here it is I have file the cue yea. Because I am just waiting for the cavc case to be over.

See what I did was dispute the record in my cavc case. That there was no final decision appeal decision from 2003

I understand if the court feel it was a final decision they would have to address it.

If the court say there is no final decision they would say the court only has jurdition  final decision.

They can't address it.

Well they did just that and even told me to do a cue to get it address.

20 years retro just sitting.

I point things out on how to fight the VA games.

They will not be saying the case is closed or anything when I do the cue.

The court has already told them it isn't a final appeal decision from 2003.

Last part I was granted 70% 2018. On appeal.

Which make the pending appeal from 2003 final.

Nothing but to do the paperwork.

They did the same thing with my tdiu. Which I win 8 years retro.

I am really just venting an pass on info 

 

 

 

 

[Mr cue]

Ok woke up and need to vent about this part of my case.lol

Ok this were I feel there is a problem and the court should address it.

Ok the VA bva VA lawyers will not say the appeal from 2003 is final..

The court say they can address it because it is not a final decision from t2003 an I need to do a cue to address it.

This is from my dispute of the record. Not the court ruling on my case

Ok here is the caught I used my service records to get granted the mental health issues an it was granted by the bva an appeal body.

Effective date is the date of the newly found service records.

Well with no one saying the case is final from 2003. That will not happen. Smh.

So basically they are just telling me I have to do the cue to get this address.

Well I am just waiting for the judge ruling on all my issues to see what my next step will be

 Because I feel the court has to address this the 2003 appeal that was pending in appeal status since 2003.

Was granted 2018 when the appeal was granted 70% on appeal.

Nothing but a effective date issue smh.

But the VA is goin to make me fight teeth an nail in this. Smh

[pacmanx1]

22 minutes ago, Mr cue said:

Effective date is the date of the newly found service records.

Instead of going through the CUE process have you considered filing a reopen or supplemental claim based on 38 CFR 3.156 New and Material Evidence which would still get you the EED that you seek? Keep in mind that this new evidence must show that you met the criteria back when you originally filed your claim, but this new evidence was not considered until later but should have been considered the first time. 

Just curious.

 

Service department records.

(1) Notwithstanding any other section in this part, at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim, notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section. Such records include, but are not limited to:

(i) Service records that are related to a claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name, as long as the other requirements of paragraph (c) of this section are met;

(ii) Additional service records forwarded by the Department of Defense or the service department to VA any time after VA's original request for service records; and

(iii) Declassified records that could not have been obtained because the records were classified when VA decided the claim.

Edited August 8, 2022 by pacmanx1

[Mr cue]

Instead of going through the CUE process have you considered filing a reopen or supplemental claim based on 38 CFR 3.156 New and Material Evidence .

Try asking about this during my appeal the VA bva refuse to address it.

no one will say if claim was reopen or close. Because it still a big retro.

So they refuse to address anything with it 

 I am at the cavc again asking them to tell the VA to address it again 

I shouldn't have to do a whole new claim to get the effective date address.

But we will see what the court rule.

Because one way or the other they will be addressing this.