(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!

 

 

 

[Rattler]

broncovet

I also have to challenge anything that have to do with the VA Claims insider.  They use uncertified Claims Agents. Than the contract you sign with them requires vet to pay them thousand of dollars out of there back pay above and beyond what a certified claims agent or attorney would charge even if you don't win.  

[pacmanx1]

1 hour ago, Rattler767 said:

OK I went out and looked at the redacted doc I posted with the above. I see nothing in it that has an SSI. Try putting a link to what you are talking about.

Why should I make things up? Read your attachments again and again until you see it. I will not post it or give someone else access to it; also, how could I know that your last four is between the numbers of 8258 and 8315?

Edited October 20, 2022 by pacmanx1

[Lemuel]

2 hours ago, Rattler767 said:

OK I went out and looked at the redacted doc I posted with the above. I see nothing in it that has an SSI. Try putting a link to what you are talking about.

On your document attached earlier to one post removed as were some of my attachments, I pointed out that you had not redacted the last 4 of your SSN.

Why do you think the VA and other civil hospitals have you stand back so you cannot hear other people securely identifying themselves.  The more we let out the less the scammers need to complete our identity to raid our bank accounts, get credit cards in our names, use our ID for medical care, etc.

Simply put, as pacman posts, the less we put out here on the public internet forums the more likely we will avoid one of those problems.  Getting identity theft insurance from our credit card company or bank is not enough.  We have to pay more attention as neither you nor I did in posting our attachments. 

I see what the forum controllers are trying to do.  Protect HADIT from getting a red flag warning such as you will find on auction.com when you try to look at a foreclosure property.  A recent experience I had looking to help my brother find a property to move off his mountain cabin nearer to his daughter.

I would like to continue to use HADIT to help myself and others.  I do not want it red flagged.

 

[broncovet]

I think maybe I know what is causing the discrepency between Pacman's suggestion that the ssn was not redacted, and others suggesting it was redacted:

There are several varieties of .pdf files.  Each has "differences":

Here are a few of them:

n Detail: The Different PDF/A Standards

• PDF/A-1: (ISO 19005-1:2005) PDF/A-1 is the original PDF/A standard, the most commonly used today, and the most restrictive. ...
• PDF/A-2: (ISO 19005-2:2011) ...
• PDF/A-3 (ISO 19005-3:2012) ...
• PDF/A-4 (ISO 19005-4:2019) ...
• Level b (Basic) ...
• Level a (Accessible) ...
• Level u (Unicode.   

Additionaly, I use "open office" for PDF files, which is still  different than Adobe Acrobat pdf files.  

The variances of the many .pdf files could well mean differences in what we see. 

Finally, many times files are converted both to and from other files to .pdf files, and what ever software converts them, also varies.   

[pacmanx1]

6 minutes ago, broncovet said:

I think maybe I know what is causing the discrepency between Pacman's suggestion that the ssn was not redacted, and others suggesting it was redacted:

There are several varieties of .pdf files.  Each has "differences":

I hope I am wrong, but I think that the poster missed redacting it. I say this because I can see where certain information is redacted but when it comes to what I posted on there is no redaction.

[Lemuel]

15 minutes ago, pacmanx1 said:

I hope I am wrong, but I think that the poster missed redacting it. I say this because I can see where certain information is redacted but when it comes to what I posted on there is no redaction.

I saw it the same way and noted on my first post after looking at it that the last 4 had not been redacted.  I use Acrobat Pro DC which redacts very well and is acceptable in the courts without being locked.  After that our attachments were deleted on your recommendation.  Thanks for looking out for us and conversely, HADIT.

The courts did allow the last 4 and YOB to be not redacted the last time I filed.  But now, I redact both in any filing.  Why bother with just half.  In rattler's case the first six digits of the SSN were xxx out leaving only the last 4.  I suppose that was on the court's securing requirements.

Some of my bank and credit card statements use the xxx's to blank enough of the account number to minimize mail theft id theft.  Mostly I get statements online where they do the same.

Even the credit score companies do the xxx with ID information or your credit reports.