Well the bva judge has spoken it's alot going on

[Mr cue]

Well I got the bva remands.

First you can't refuse a exam the bva judge has stated I refuse anymore exams.

Get a medical opinion based on my record with out a in person Exam. And listed the evidence to be address by the medical opinion. I say that a win.

They now have to address that my mental health has been in appeal status since 2001. Win.

They still try to not address how I reopen the mental health appeal.

Service records from 1993. Lol we tackle that later.

1993 effective date not 2001.

They now have to address my loss of use. Win. All that evidence listed. Win.

Only thing I don't like is that they are try to make me do a new form 9. But I don't see them playing with the docket numbers again.

Because the judge stated everything is intertwine.

I don't see no more exam games been play.

Only think they are playing with my smc l for the mental health. I had a dro hearing and was send to exams after the hearing 2019.

One again they are just leaving one of my appeals in appeal status. But I work on that later. If they don't address it.

But all in all I am happy with the results I just now have to get them to address it fast.

My case is advance in the docket.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Mr cue

[Mr cue]

[Mr cue]

Ok here is the Cavc remand and the bva remand. For loss of use smc benefits.

Here are the rules think this show the VA doesn't  follow it's own rules.

I have a whole remand for a examiner to make the determination.

When the law is the rater is to make the determination.

Do you think I ain't point this out before the remand. Smh.

So no I don't have belief that the VA will do the Right thing.

 

Responsibility for Determining LOU The responsibility for determining whether there is loss of use (LOU) of an extremity

• rests with the rating activity, and

• cannot be delegated to the examining physician.

c. Information to Request From an Examiner to Determine LOU When requesting an examination to determine LOU of an extremity, ask the examiner to furnish a

• detailed objective description of remaining function

• quantitative assessment of strength for each extremity involved, and

• description of any pain that affects use.

Do not request that the examiner

• determine LOU, or

• express an opinion as to whether there is, or is not, LOU of an extremity or extremities.

Note: If LOU cannot be determined upon review of an examination report, request an appropriate specialized examination.

References: For more information on

• considering functional loss due to pain in claims for SMC, see Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App 369, 374 (1998), and

• requesting a specialist examination, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 3.A.6.

d. Determining the Extent of Examinations in Claims Involving SMC Under 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) Through (n)

Example: A prior examination clearly established LOU of both lower extremities at a level preventing natural knee action. Do not request a complete medical examination if the only issue in question is the extent of involvement of one or both of the upper extremities. Instead, request an examination with a notation that the examination be restricted to the degree of functional impairment of the upper extremities.

[Mr cue]

Here is court precedent showing the VA shouldn't be remand cavc remand to ro for another bit at the apple. More comp exams after a veteran refuse.

So I don't thing the VA follow it's own rules and laws.

Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 305, 312 (2003) (Court noted that it would not be permissible for VA to undertake further development if purpose was to obtain evidence against appellant’s case)

 

Adams v. Principi, 256 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001), (in which the court stated that it would be improper for the Veterans Court to remand a case to the Board to give the DVA another opportunity to develop evidence needed to satisfy an evidentiary burden it had failed to satisfy the first time, i.e., to “attempt to introduce new evidence sufficient to make up the shortfall” in the agency’s pro.

i will be posting more law that may help veterans.

[Mr cue]

Ok now I will show you how the VA is refusing to grant my effective date for the mental health.

An they don't follow the law.

Ok I got the soc for the pending appeal 2003. All it state is it closed that all.

Ok I reopen the mental health 2018 and was granted 70% on appeal. 

It don't address how it was reopen using service records. Smh. 1993 effective date.

 

 

(c) 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.

(2) Paragraph (c)(1) of this section does not apply to records that VA could not have obtained when it decided the claim because the records did not exist when VA decided the claim, or because the claimant failed to provide sufficient information for VA to identify and obtain the records from the respective service department or from any other official source.

(3) An award made based all or in part on the records identified by paragraph (c)(1) of this section is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later, or such other date as may be authorized by the provisions of this part applicable to the previously decided claim.

(4) A retroactive evaluation of disability resulting from disease or injury subsequently service connected on the basis of the new evidence from the service department must be supported adequately by medical evidence. Where such records clearly support the assignment of a specific rating over a part or the entire period of time involved, a retroactive evaluation will be assigned accord.

 

Ok here is part of my cavc remand.

See if they address the reopen appeal using service records. 1993 my smc is effective 1993.

Lot of smc retro. 

 

Because the Court's remand for further adjudication of the psychiatric disorder effective 

date issue may change the factual predicate on which VA determined the proper effective date for 

the award of SMC at the housebound was based, it holds that the issues are inextricably intertwined 

and that remand of the SMC housebound rate effective date is likewise warranted. See Smith v. 

Gober, 236 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (explaining that, "in the interests of judicial economy 

and avoidance of piecemeal litigation," claims that are "intimately connected" should be 

adjudicated together); Henderson v. West, 12 Vet.App. 11, 20 (1998) ("[W]here a decision on one 

issue would have a significant impact upon another, and that impact in turn could render any 

review by this Court of the decision on the other [issue] meaningless and a waste of judicial 

resources, the two [issues] are inextricably intertwined." (quotations and alterations omitted)

 

Next I will show how they are put me through all this and are doing it on purpose so yes I get frustrated when a veteran is told.

The VA will follow the rules you should do nothing.

That is far from true.