Earlier effective CUE

[jfrei]

So Anyone successful with earlier effective claims? As you can see the original 90% was backdated to 2010 through an appeal I filed in 2014 granted 2016. My TBI orginal rated 70% then one year later made 100% tdiu but permanent and total then another year later made 100% scheduler P and T. My belief it should have been that the day I got out of the military but had to deal with denials for years until my appeal was granted. I feel like they were trying to save some money by waiting until they did to make me 100%. I have so many issues with it the only reason they bumped me up to 100 is they combined my PTSD one year  later. Ive waited this long to dive into this question because of the time it takes me away from things that matter like my two young children 

Edited September 27, 2023 by jfrei

[pacmanx1]

2 hours ago, jfrei said:

So Anyone successful with earlier effective claims?

My situation was a little worse than yours. The VARO originally denied my claim and after filing a NOD the BVA finally granted my service connection, but the VARO low balled my rating and screwed up my effective date. Filing a new NOD, the VARO increased my rating but granted me an effective date with no retroactive payment and I filed a new NOD where this time the VARO decided to decrease my rating and continued to assign a new incorrect effective date.

I then filed a new NOD and the BVA finally granted me an earlier effective date going back to my reopen claim but failed to correct my rating percentage. So once again I filed a new NOD and the BVA finally granted my correct effective date with my correct rating percentage and paid my retroactive payment.

I decided to make a long story short, but this has been going on for over two decades, but I have been rated 100% schedular for most of this time. These new rating decisions granted me two separate EEDs, first with my initial grant going back to my reopened claim and second and finally going back to my original date of claim of 1998. If you feel that your evidence supports a particular rating percentage and or effective date, you should appeal to get a proper decision. Never give up. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by pacmanx1

[pacmanx1]

If this is a recent decision, within the last year, less than 365 days, instead of filing a CUE claim, filing a timely appeal would get you the exact same benefits as filing a CUE claim but you keep the benefit of doubt, and it is a lot and I do mean a lot easier to win and overcome. I have won Cue claims, but it is a lot simpler to win through filing a timely NOD. 

[broncovet]

I agree with Pacman.   Each effective date claim has 2 parts, and the date of claim is only one of them.  

The other, is the facts found, which is the date your doc documented that you had symptoms.  

You may be eligible for an earlier effective date via a Fenderson "staged" rating.  

[jfrei]

Guess I need to do research again…

[pacmanx1]

14 minutes ago, jfrei said:

Guess I need to do research again…

If your decision is beyond a year’s time, keep in mind there is no time limit to file a CUE Claim. With that said, you can also file a reopen claim with new and material/relevant evidence using 38 CFR 3.156. This regulation states that the VA and or the veteran can reopen a claim and the VA will re-adjudicate it as if the evidence was within the veterans' records or in the VA possession.  Filing a reopen claim will/would also get you the exact same benefits if the VA reopens your claim.

3.156 New evidence.

New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators.

(a) New and material evidence. For claims to reopen decided prior to the effective date provided in § 19.2(a), the following standards apply. A claimant may reopen a finally adjudicated legacy claim by submitting new and material evidence. New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.

(d) New and relevant evidence. On or after the effective date provided in § 19.2(a), a claimant may file a supplemental claim as prescribed in § 3.2501. If new and relevant evidence, as defined in § 3.2501(a)(1), is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the agency of original jurisdiction will re-adjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record.

eCFR :: 38 CFR 3.156 -- New evidence.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by pacmanx1

[jfrei]

thanks for the help everyone