(CAVC|BVA) Remands & (10) year rule in effect.

[Oakley]

I've been mediclally retired since June 27,2012 with the same disabilities I have today been 100℅ unemployable P&T AND THEN 100℅ Schedular from :(June 27,2012) and "housebound in fact,"  which is the SMC (S-2), from    (June 27,2012).

 

So the (10) year rule is in effect, if that even means anything, the VA will do what the hell it wants and break every rule on the way as they laugh about it,let's face it. 

 

So I couldn't get anything successful on my claims at my local VARO they just deny,deny,deny without even considering the evidence in front of them. So I appealed to the BVA which after a year granted everything (8) different contentions ALL  "GRANTED,"                      NO  "REMANDS, I was very excited about this, but the only concern was  the effective dates were way off, by years!

 

So, I filed with the court of veterans appeals or CAVC, about correcting the effective dates and the judge at CAVC agreed with me and ordered that it be "remanded," back to the BVA to correct the "Effective Dates," that are more consistent with his decision.

 

So here we are, the LOCAL VARO, denies everything I've asked to be awarded, several times over, I then send in the same disabilities, with same amount of evidence, that my local VARO had this whole time, and the "Judge" at  the "BVA grants" everything,  and the BVA judge also finds a "CUE,"  on the local VARO for not awarding me or even considering the  SMC (S-2) with effective date : (June 27,2012). Then the judge at CAVC agrees that the effective dates need to be corrected and order it remanded back to the BVA to correct this to be more consistent with this decision.

 

So the next part is where In have some issues with BVA GRANTS ME EVERYTHING THAT LOCAL VARO DENIED, THE CAVC JUDGE AGREES THE DECISION IS CORRECT BY THE BVA FOR AWARDING ME BUT MUST BE REMANDED BACK TO BVA TO CORRECT THE EFFECTIVE DATES, THEN ONCE THE BVA GETS THE REMAND, THE BVA JUDGE, NOT THR SAME JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORIGINAL GRANT OF ALL MY CONTENTIONS,  BUT A DIFFERENT BVA JUDGE, THIS WAS  (2) WEEKS AGO BY THE WAY WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED,  DOESN'T EVEN MENTION MUCH ABOUT CORRECTING THE EFFECTIVE DATES, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE  REASON FOR WHY THE  CAVC JUDGE REMANDED, IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT THE BVA JUDGE WANTS ME TO GO THRU ALL THE EXAMS AGAIN FOR AID AND ATTENDANCE, AS HE DOESNT LIKE THE NOTES OR RESULTS FROM MY MEDICAL RECORDS?? 

 

SO THE BVA JUDGE THEN "REMANDS A REMAND,"  ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE VARO, TO CORRECT THIS, BUT KEEP IN MIND, THIS ALREADY AFTER A BVA JUDGE GRANTED EVERYTHING WITH THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF HIM, THEN A CAVC JUDGE, AGREES WITH THE BVA AWARD, BUT REMAND BACK TO THE BVA TO CORRECT THE EFFECTIVE DATES, THEN THE BVA JUDGE ON REMAND DOESNT MENTION MUCH ABOUT CORRECTING THE EFFECTIVE DATES, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE REMAND BY CAVC IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT THEN BVA JUDGE REMANDS, IT BACK LOCAL VARO, TO HAVE ME RETAKE ALL THE EXAMS "AGAIN"  ON A DECISION THAT A JUDGE AT THE BVA ORIGINALLY GRANTED AND A CAVC JUDGE AGREED THAT THE DECISION WAS CORRECT BUT TO CORRECT THE EFFECTIVE DATES.

 

So as of right now the local VARO has the remand/appeal from the BVA.

  So is this legal? 

 

Whats your thoughts on this?

 

"(10) -year rule in Effect"

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

[Mr cue]

10 hours ago, Dustoff1970 said:

Did you ever receive an answer on that other forum for this same question.  I saw only reply from Spunky.  He is a VARO rater and very accurate but brief with answers.  Maybe the good fellow granted my 60% GERD and 10% Tinnitus within 20 days very recently.

May the sun shine on him forever. Cheers

What does this have to do with the poster?

I would think if they posted on here they choose to get different info.

I hope someone address this why are u cheerleading about another site on here and a rater from there. Smh

[Tbird]

@Mr cueI didn't take it as cheerleading another site. Look if you get the information you need to get your claim granted then that is a success.

We don't want to get into a pissing contest with another site, but i'm not seeing a problem with this post.

[Mr cue]

I am not trying to get it to it this your site.

But now veterans can come from other site and tell a poster didn't they answer your ? On the other site. Smh.

An be cheerleaders for the other site info.

Last thing an I am leaving it alone if the poster thought the info on the other site was what he / her need don't think they would come looking for more info. Smh.

But hay

 

 

 

 

[Tbird]

This is always a tough call for me. I appreciate your support.

[Lemuel]

This circle might be broken.  As I remember, at the beginning of the hearing the BVA judge ask me if I wanted to wave (essentially not having a remand and getting a decision by the Judge).  I have always waved but have decided on my next hearing not to wave.  I believe that will cause me to be in a position of finale decision by the appropriate Judge subject to appeal and, I presume, without a remand getting to a final decision.  Then I am 81 and tired of doing the circle.  Plus, I have TDIU effective from 1985 well over the 20-year rule.  Only going for an earlier effective date on the TBI with confirmed temporal lobe epilepsy in 1990 as a residual of my 1969 TBI with witness testimony and a nexus in the nursing notes in 1969 supported by recorded performance marks that indicate the complex partial seizures continued through my discharge in 1974.

At the CAVC the same question came up.  What happens if we do not wave and go on with the appeal when the law and facts found are in our favor?  Has anyone ever tried that after a couple of rounds and taken it to the CAFC for an order if necessary.  I think it would take an attorney to brief the case but once at the CAVC and above costs are granted when you win, and good attorneys take the case on contingency.  (Unless the facts are being misrepresented to them when they look at the BVA Decisions.)

Do the examinations.  I made the mistake of not doing the examinations because they were not ordered as remanded by the DRO.  That is just causing a delay in getting back to the BVA without a new remand for the examinations.

I have asked, in my brief to the BVA, for an extra schedular rating if the Judge does not find, based upon the facts of record, that the EED is warranted, and the rating based upon the schedule for partial and complex partial seizures is not warranted as I have stated in my brief.

The 2017 remand by the BVA Judge Marjorie Auer to the Director, Compensation services of a 1987 extra-schedular claim for TDIU because of my employment difficulties resulted in a April of 2020 TDIU rating decision with an EED of September of 1985.

This time, to eliminate as many of the remands as possible, I stated each fact as I saw them from the record, quoting the relevant pages of the RBA on each fact, and asked the BVA to find the facts as I stated they were, so that I would be able to claim "arbitrary and capricious" fact finding if the Judge was unable to support the Judge's fact finding with the record.

 

[Mr cue]

1 hour ago, Lemuel said:

This time, to eliminate as many of the remands as possible, I stated each fact as I saw them from the record, quoting the relevant pages of the RBA on each fact, and asked the BVA to find the facts as I stated they were, so that I would be able to claim "arbitrary and capricious" fact finding if the Judge was unable to support the Judge's fact finding with the record.

I am do just this in my cavc remand to bva the 2 nd time.

This time I am referring to all the comp exam an the judge told them they gave to address there own previous decisions in my smc case this time.

There will be no excuse of not addressing my favorable evidence.

I believe that what cause me issues last time the board was to lazy to address my record.

This time they will have the dates of bva decisions and dates for all the comp exam they refuse to address.

Good advice