Changes coming in April 2025

[broncovet]

    There are significant rating changes coming up in the spring of 2025, especially for sleep apnea, mental health disorders and tinnitus.  

         If you even might be eligible for a higher rating, or a new rating, my advice is to apply now.  Why?

        Generally, when the rating changes, the Veteran should get "the more favorable" (to the Veteran) of both the "new" and the "old" regulation.  That will all change in April 2025, because then you will be forced into qualifying "with the new" rating system, as you are too late for the old system.  

       In this example, by applying now, you would get to apply EITHER the new or the old criteria, whichever is more favorable.  But, if you wait, then you have no choice but to meet the "new Criteria", which could have unpleasant changes in it.  

       Dont take chances, apply right away, and get the benefit of the new and old rating criteria.

[brokensoldier244th]

I don't want to wade too far into this because ultimately it's the Rater that would assign it, so most of it is not my monkeys other than pointing out instances in the record(s) where the veteran is unemployed and has been consistently due to medical reasons.

That said, I work claims every day with 21-8940s for unemployability that have ratings lower than the statutory amount, which would be, by definition, extra scheduler. I've worked on a claim, then eventually saw the claimant again for a different issue, where they had been rated X% at the time, their grant for disabilities added 20%, and they also got IU added to it based on their medical notes, pvt notes, and present employment situation. This is for claims where the veteran is asking for IU consideration. If the bulk of the prior post(s) has to do with inferring at the rater level then Ill take my two steps back in formation and continue listening with my eyes closed. Have a good day, all. I'm in sessions for most of the day *ugh*

 

[broncovet]

Rattler:

    People "who have been around VA" longer than myself (and I have been around since 2002), indicate the VA used to have a "rating board" and it included a medical professional, who could render medical opinions.  Im not sure when that was scrapped, but it was before 2002.  

    The person describing it to me indicated that VA had trouble hiring enough doctors, so they did away with the "rating board" and now use C and P exams with docs either at the VA, or the VA hires third parties to contract to do c and p exams.  Prior to that, the medical profession on the "rating board", that is a group of people who rated Veterans claims..a board..which included what we would now describe as rating specialists, probably assistants, and maybe some legal or para legal to help the board reach a consensus decision.  

   Now the "rating Board" would seem to refer to the "Board of Veterans Appeals", who also does not have medical professionals, but the Board does have an attorney to represent the board.  

[brokensoldier244th]

13 minutes ago, broncovet said:

Rattler:

    People "who have been around VA" longer than myself (and I have been around since 2002), indicate the VA used to have a "rating board" and it included a medical professional, who could render medical opinions.  Im not sure when that was scrapped, but it was before 2002.  

    The person describing it to me indicated that VA had trouble hiring enough doctors, so they did away with the "rating board" and now use C and P exams with docs either at the VA, or the VA hires third parties to contract to do c and p exams.  Prior to that, the medical profession on the "rating board", that is a group of people who rated Veterans claims..a board..which included what we would now describe as rating specialists, probably assistants, and maybe some legal or para legal to help the board reach a consensus decision.  

   Now the "rating Board" would seem to refer to the "Board of Veterans Appeals", who also does not have medical professionals, but the Board does have an attorney to represent the board.  

Yeah, I remember in 2002 when I discharged and filed my local RO had a doc and VSO in the office to talk directly to the raters and stuff. 

[Rattler]

Interesting. Was that a change in the Reg's? Or was that a change in the VA's internal policy? (You know the unofficial Reg's)

There has been a couple of Supreme Court Cases that overrule the Chevron doctrine. The VA has relied on the Chevron doctrine for years to defend its non-Reg policies in its decisions.

Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/relentless-inc-v-department-of-commerce/

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/

The new rulings in the Chevron doctrine should throw a monkey wrench into some of the VA non-official policies.  I am surprised that some smart attornies have not picked up on it to challenge the VA.

 

[brokensoldier244th]

33 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Interesting. Was that a change in the Reg's? Or was that a change in the VA's internal policy? (You know the unofficial Reg's)

There has been a couple of Supreme Court Cases that overrule the Chevron doctrine. The VA has relied on the Chevron doctrine for years to defend its non-Reg policies in its decisions.

Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/relentless-inc-v-department-of-commerce/

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/

The new rulings in the Chevron doctrine should throw a monkey wrench into some of the VA non-official policies.  I am surprised that some smart attornies have not picked up on it to challenge the VA.

 

Change in regulations regarding which topic? So far we've discussed proposed changes to MH, Sleep Apnea and some other things listed in the Federal Register,  the application of Extra Sched IU, and "old school RO's" when they used to have a VSO and a Doc on site for quick medical opinions that didn't require a full exam. 

[Tbird]

Here's something interesting about Chevron.

Sexual Assault in the Military: The Impact of Overturning Chevron

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Kathryn Spletstoser v. John Hyten that sexual assault is not "incident to service," allowing the lawsuit to proceed against a high-ranking military. Read More