As for a HLR? or no?

[Ranmic]

Last Nov I filled two claims, one for an increase in my current SC knees and then I filed a second one for my hips as a secondary to my knees.  The VA combined my two claims and then I got C&P exams for my knees and my hips.  I got an increase for my knees but they said my hips were not service connected.  I'm unsure if I file a higher level review for my hips if they will review my knees also.  All I want is for them to re-evaluate my hips, and not my knees as they are maxed out for instability and knee strain and I don't want that touched.  Below is what I filed for.  Again, I did get my knees increased and now they are maxed out.  I just want to challenge my hips.  Any advice?

• knee condition bilateral (Increase)
• hip condition bilateral (Secondary)

 

[pacmanx1]

20 minutes ago, Rattler767 said:

I don't want you to think I am flaming you but. As an HLR only reviews what's in the file you cannot add any docs for them to review.  You cannot just through docs at them and expect them to read them all. What got me my win was I made the statement that, "the attached docs were in my C-File and were presented as reference to the doc's that the VA did not review when they made their original decision.  I framed it as a QUE error.  It sounds like what you have is a QUE error due to the VA error not to review everything in you file. In your decision letter they will list what doc's they reviewed in making the decision. I the doc's you are referring to are not listed than the VA errored in its decision by not reviewing all the evidence.

While I do agree with your post, there is no such thing as a "QUE" error. I noticed this on several posts, it is a CUE ERROR (CLEAR UNMISTAKABLE ERROR) "CUE" ERROR. This may seem unimportant to you but when veterans write their arguments, they must be clear, and simple mistakes can cause major misunderstandings.

Edited October 30, 2022 by pacmanx1

[brokensoldier244th]

7 hours ago, pacmanx1 said:

While I do agree with your post, there is no such thing as a "QUE" error. I noticed this on several posts, it is a CUE ERROR (CLEAR UNMISTAKABLE ERROR) "CUE" ERROR. This may seem unimportant to you but when veterans write their arguments, they must be clear, and simple mistakes can cause major misunderstandings.

He's right- this is a VERY important thing to be aware of, especially for CUE. CUE have to be very specifically crafted and worded. You have to put exactly what you think is wrong about the decision, and cite exactly what error you think was violated. Since so many VA regulations sound similar to each other, citing one that sounds almost like what the correct one is will not work. There is no room for inference on a CUE, and no 'interpretation' of what we think the veteran is claiming. CUE is a legal standard that must be asked for, and specifically cited- to the reg- and supported with WHY it was violated, and what evidence was missed, mis-applied, ignored, whatever. Asking for a QUE- well, that isn't a CUE, and federal laws support that it must be asked for in the right way, in the right format, with the right supporting evidence, otherwise it doesn't count. 

There are some things that we have wiggle room on, or can justify. Claim a contention as Direct when it really turns out to be Secondary? Well, a good VSR should catch that, and, if supported, can send for both types of opinions, anyway (as they should). It's not on YOU to know if its primary or secondary. The wording you send in helps us get an idea of where your mind is with what you are claiming, and what direction to go for looking at the type of evidence in the record, but at the end of the day it comes back to "all theories being considered that are plausible". CUE doesn't have that wiggle room.

 

[MilvetHD]

On 10/30/2022 at 8:07 AM, brokensoldier244th said:

He's right- this is a VERY important thing to be aware of, especially for CUE. CUE have to be very specifically crafted and worded. You have to put exactly what you think is wrong about the decision, and cite exactly what error you think was violated. Since so many VA regulations sound similar to each other, citing one that sounds almost like what the correct one is will not work. There is no room for inference on a CUE, and no 'interpretation' of what we think the veteran is claiming. CUE is a legal standard that must be asked for, and specifically cited- to the reg- and supported with WHY it was violated, and what evidence was missed, mis-applied, ignored, whatever. Asking for a QUE- well, that isn't a CUE, and federal laws support that it must be asked for in the right way, in the right format, with the right supporting evidence, otherwise it doesn't count. 

There are some things that we have wiggle room on, or can justify. Claim a contention as Direct when it really turns out to be Secondary? Well, a good VSR should catch that, and, if supported, can send for both types of opinions, anyway (as they should). It's not on YOU to know if its primary or secondary. The wording you send in helps us get an idea of where your mind is with what you are claiming, and what direction to go for looking at the type of evidence in the record, but at the end of the day it comes back to "all theories being considered that are plausible". CUE doesn't have that wiggle room.

 

I'm not offended because I am fully aware of how the machine works and what is present in my case. So while you can and have offered generally speculation, I know the facts. All my of ducks were lined in a row and the VA failed to do their job plain and simple. I say that humbly and based on facts, there is a reason nearly 70-80 percent of cases that work themselves through the BVA and CAVC are generally granted or remanded in the vets favor.

I'll give you an example of the sloppy work. They actually listed as one of the reasons for my denial was because I was not formally diagnosed until 11 years after service, they conveniently ignored indisputable science based consensus included in the original filing that my condition at unset is asymptomatic. For those who may be unaware that means without symptoms. My claim request wasn't submitted on a presumative basis, thus is it is irrevelant for purposes of compensation when I was diagnosed or filed according to the law. It is no mistake that the legal standard is an in-service event. 

Edited October 31, 2022 by MilvetHD