Entitlement to Smc S?

[Bluntly]

Greetings to all and hope all are doing well as can be currently 90% (100% TDIU) from PTSD at 70% alone. Other disabilities are 30%, 20%, 10%, 10% and two 0%’s. Just awarded rhinitis today which gave me the other 10%, so this didn’t change my overall percentage. Also I have an appeal that was granted this year from 2016 and currently I’m at the end of that just waiting to have a rating and effective date if that matters, which should be any day now.

Do I qualify for smc s now? I know once my appeal gets rated I will be but was curious to see if it applies to this new claim that was granted. Thanks for your time and any insights are appreciated.

[Lemuel]

2 hours ago, Bluntly said:

Good advice as always because even tho this appeal has been continuously pursued, September will be that year marker. Filed nod in May of 2023, then HLR decision came in September of 2023.

If you feel representation by an attorney may be Chisolm, Chisolm & Kilpatrick will take you.  They like SMC at the BVA level.

I had them but dropped them because they only wanted to do the SMC-t for me.  I wanted them to address my Next of Friend claims for other veterans with organic brain syndromes including TBI and Cerebral malaria.  They wanted to go for the SMC quickie only.  

I did not think I needed them for the SMC-T because I have the higher level of care the VA GC argued was necessary for SMC-T at the pending decision from Laska V McDonough 22-1018 currently in the "Stayed" group.  A supplemental brief was filed by CCK following the SCOTUS decision on U S Departmental writing of regulations that does not follow the U S Code enacted by Congress and signed by POTUS.  The stay is probably waiting on a brief from the VAGC.

 

[Lemuel]

My BVA hearing is November 19.  Minimally, I expect SMC S.

[broncovet]

Lemeul, I dont recommend dropping cck law because they persued SMC T.  

Instead, when you apply for an increase, its always presumed you are seeking the highest allowed by law, and CCK was correct, there.  

If you are at 10 percent, it makes no sense to appeal, asking for 20 percent.  Even if you do, the Board should assume you are seeking the max, that is, 100 percent plus smc 

If CCK law thought you may be entitled to SMC T, go for it.  They know better about smc than anyone.  You may even get it.  Or you could get SMC S, or any of the letters in between.  

You probably wont apply for a job, seeking the lowest amount possible.  Your boss could, theoretically respond:  

Quote

Ok, the smallest possible is negative, so you owe us $100 per month.  

Edited August 9 by broncovet

[Lemuel]

1 hour ago, broncovet said:

Lemeul, I dont recommend dropping cck law because they persued SMC T.  

Instead, when you apply for an increase, its always presumed you are seeking the highest allowed by law, and CCK was correct, there.  

If you are at 10 percent, it makes no sense to appeal, asking for 20 percent.  Even if you do, the Board should assume you are seeking the max, that is, 100 percent plus smc 

If CCK law thought you may be entitled to SMC T, go for it.  They know better about smc than anyone.  You may even get it.  Or you could get SMC S, or any of the letters in between.  

You probably wont apply for a job, seeking the lowest amount possible.  Your boss could, theoretically respond:  

As I have said before, it is more important to me to address my claim for TBI for veterans with TBI back to 11/26/1994 when I first made the "next of friend claim" than it is that I receive one dime of SMC T for myself.

And actually, that claim goes back to 1987 when I filed it in USDCSC.  And now with the Chevron Decision and Dobbs, there is a possibility that it could go all the way back to 1987.  CCK would not even look at it.

And maybe no law firm will.  But I am going to take it as far as I can because the general disability compensation requirements remain the same.  I think the "next of friend claim" has disappeared except as post DeFacto for the 1987 and 1994 claims. 

Best to you Bronco. 

And for everyone else, look out for yourself.  As I advised above, CCK is the firm for SMC.  They just do not want to do the rest. 

I would rather see you get the SMC before tackling a higher permanent rating for yourself if you qualify.  If you need the higher rating to qualify for SMC then, CCK would probably still be your choice if they will take you.

Edited August 9 by Lemuel
correct errors

[Bluntly]

Back with an update, as my appointment was held this morning. The guy I spoken to was helpful but didn’t get to resolve my issue. He did confirm to me that he sees in the system that they’re trying to have my claim decided by the 13th, which will be Tuesday. He said that’s good news because others that submitted in June don’t have a date or know when theirs going to be decided. I took what he said with a grain of salt and just will have to see about Tuesday lol. I submitted this claim July 29, 2024, so in two weeks will be my fastest ever decision whether good or bad. I’ll let y'all know the results whenever I get them. Thanks as always for your time 

[Bluntly]

Greetings, Hadit Family 

I’m back with an update as my suspense date for my supplemental moved to September 12th now. We’ll see if a decision is reached before then.

Also when I logged in today I’d notice this correspondence claim popped up. I called the 1-800 # and was informed it’s an administrative issue and it’s internal. I believe this is in response to my ask Va question that I put in on the 1st of August. Which this claim reflects that date, anyone else experience such a claim? And how soon was it rectified? Thanks for your time and insights as always 

Edited August 22 by Bluntly