Want to understand why VA seem to get eed wrong

[Mr cue]

It is my believe and experience that the VA are changing docket number after bva remand to them.

It about the wording in the bva remand order.

Bva judge call your appeal issue a down stream issue.

 use the words grant In the first instance.

The board granted the issue with no rating.

The ro Grant 10% your case should be return to the board front of the line if you disagree.

The regional office will start a whole new appeal stream 

All these thing will get the ro to have you new nod VA form 9 to get the appeal return to the board.

When it should be automatic be send back 

Now when you do the nod or form 9 the regional office is taken them an starting new appeal streams.

Now when you bva remand is send back to the board it at the end of the line.

An you are waiting years now say you case gets granted.

The effective date will be the date if the new nod or the VA form 9.

This is my first seeing this move smh.

But I bet this is how they clean up alot of legacy appeal on there books.

Because this new stuff is crazy 

I got  appeal that I been fight since 2019 remand  by the cavc to the bva.

I now have a 2023 docket number I can't make this up.

I am 70000 in line they don't even address it as. Cavc remand anymore Crazy 

[Jake206th]

I have noticed this problem also. And it has to do with the distinction  between  an  original  rating  and  a  claim  for  an  increased  rating. I think the VA gets this wrong often. So much so that it had to have precedential case rulings to address it, which also didn't stop it.

 

 

I am not a lawyer and nothing I write is legal advice. It is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding. and I may be incorrect.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Jake206th

[Jake206th]

 

 

Turk v. Peake, 06-0069 (Vet. App. 2008)

 Where a party appeals from an original assignment of a disability rating, the claim is classified as an original claim, rather than as one for an increased rating. See Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 218, 225 (1995); see also Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999) (establishing that initial appeals of a disability rating for a service-connected disability fall under the category of "original claims"). Accordingly, the Board should have classified the (…) claim as an original claim in appellate status, rather than as a freestanding claim for increased rating.

 

However, the  Secretary confuses the veteran's dissatisfaction with his initial ratings with claims for increased ratings.  A claim for an increased rating is a new claim.  See Suttmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 127, 136 (1993) (claim for increase "based upon facts different from the prior final claim"); Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2  Vet. App. 629,  631-32   (1992)

 

When a person appeals from an original assignment of a disability rating, the claim is treated as original because the original claim never became final.

 This means that keeping the claim open by appealing can enable a person to receive benefits starting with the original date of the veteran’s claim. It also means that it is not necessary to meet the “new and material evidence” standard of a reopened claim.

 

 

 

 

I am not a lawyer and nothing I write is legal advice. It is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding. and I may be incorrect.

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Jake206th

[Mr cue]

Ok there are veterans who case we're remand by the bva to the regional office.

Everyone understand after the regional office finish processing the remand orders.

The appeal is to be return to the board front  of the line. By law 

So If you have a bva remand and the regional office have you do a new nod or form 9 

They will  start a whole new appeal stream. Based on the date of the new nod r form 9.

So now when your case get back to the bva you are at the end of the line like you just started the appeal to the bva.

This is how they are clearing legacy appeal off the book an I believe it not to be legal. 

My appeal start 2019 it has been remand by the cavc two times.

Bva Remand to the regional office this has happenn both times

I now have 3 different docket numbers and some of my appeal work in legacy some work in ama.

I have a 2019 2021 2023 docket numbers.

The issue they change to a 23 docket number is now 70.000 in line at the board.

An they refuse to address or return it t to the front of the line now.

The VA doing this add years to veterans bva cavc remand to get a decision or to get the case back in front of the bva judge.

I have a petition about this I just ask for full cavc court review on this issues.

First step to appeal to the federal circuit court. 

This is a legal? That the VA refuse to answer. there is no law that allows this.

I will tell ever veteran to check there docket numbers after bva Remand to regional office.

 

 

[ArNG11]

On 1/30/2023 at 5:10 PM, Mr cue said:

It is my believe and experience that the VA are changing docket number after bva remand to them.

It about the wording in the bva remand order.

Bva judge call your appeal issue a down stream issue.

 use the words grant In the first instance.

The board granted the issue with no rating.

The ro Grant 10% your case should be return to the board front of the line if you disagree.

The regional office will start a whole new appeal stream 

All these thing will get the ro to have you new nod VA form 9 to get the appeal return to the board.

When it should be automatic be send back 

Now when you do the nod or form 9 the regional office is taken them an starting new appeal streams.

Now when you bva remand is send back to the board it at the end of the line.

An you are waiting years now say you case gets granted.

The effective date will be the date if the new nod or the VA form 9.

This is my first seeing this move smh.

But I bet this is how they clean up alot of legacy appeal on there books.

Because this new stuff is crazy 

I got  appeal that I been fight since 2019 remand  by the cavc to the bva.

I now have a 2023 docket number I can't make this up.

I am 70000 in line they don't even address it as. Cavc remand anymore Crazy 

I never really thought about it that way as I am still new in the later appeals bracket but the point you bring up is quite concerning.  I was weary when VA was promoting the new fast lanes for processing claims, it really was just a bait and switch to get the claims appeals down and lower the benefits due to Veterans in the process, particularly with the effective dates.  Smoke screen diversion tactics what the VA does best.  I am starting to understand the process more and things are becoming clearer.  Thanks Mr. Cue for bringing this post up.  Wow.

[Jake206th]

On 2/2/2023 at 2:05 PM, Mr cue said:

The appeal is to be return to the board front  of the line. By law

I hear what you are saying, and that was under the legacy system. It appears the AOJ is treating those legacy board remands like AMA remands where they can get away without notifying the board that maximum benefits being sought weren't granted, like EED, causing a Veteran to loose their place in line at the board. Happened to me also so I am aware of this game.

Basically if the AOJ doesn't return a remand to the board telling them that it was not fully granted, it appears that the board doesn't have jurisdiction over it to do anything. So in my case when the AOJ granted 100% and ignored the claim effective date, the board had no idea that maximum benifits being sought by the Veteran hadn't been granted.

 

 

RO  remand action notifications

“Action by agency of original jurisdiction when remand received,” to remove the requirement that the AOJ must notify the Board as to the action it has taken on a remanded case. Prior to the Veterans Appeal Control and Locator System (VACOLS) becoming the Department's sole computer appeals tracking system, the AOJs were required to keep the Board informed of the status of Board remand cases. Such action is no longer needed, however, because VACOLS is now the sole appeals tracking system within the Department for both the Board and the AOJs, and any final action taken on a case by the AOJ will be reflected in VACOLS. It is the responsibility of the AOJs to return remanded cases to the Board that are not fully granted by the AOJ on remand. The Board does not have any jurisdiction to take further action on a remanded matter until it is returned by the AOJ.

 

Everything is in VBMS now.

 

I am not a lawyer and nothing I write is legal advice. It is just how things appear to me based on my limited understanding. and I may be incorrect.

Edited February 3, 2023 by Jake206th

[Jake206th]

Federal Register VA Claims and Appeals Modernization 1-18-2019,

This final rule is effective February 19, 2019. Effective Date: 02/19/2019

 

Document Type: Rule

Document Citation: 84 FR 138

Page: 138-194 (57 pages)

 

A commenter expressed concern that because remanded cases are no longer returned to the Board per the proposed rule, the Board will not be able to ensure that the agency of original jurisdiction complied with all remand directives, consistent with Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1999). The commenter urged VA to develop and implement a dedicated quality review methodology for Board remands. The design of the new system provides ample protections to ensure that subsequent adjudicators comply with the Board's remand directives. The AMA requires that any pre-decisional duty to assist error discovered by an adjudicator be cured and that the decision be readjudicated by the agency of original jurisdiction. Following readjudication, the veteran may again request Higher-Level Review, file a Supplemental Claim, or appeal to the Board. If such action is taken within one year, the original effective date will be preserved.

 

Regarding the commenter's recommendation for dedicated quality review, the Direct Review docket, described in proposed § 20.301, captures quality feedback from appeals in which no additional evidence is added to the record. This allows VA to identify areas in which the claims process can be improved and will allow VA to develop targeted training. VA makes no changes based on these comments.

 

 

 

I am not a lawyer and nothing I say is legal advice. It is just how it appears to me based on my limited understanding and I could be wrong.