Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules
.thumb.png.0b66d11060c658bf7aa45efe4372d3e7.png)
- 0
Announcements
-
Tell a friend
-
Recent Achievements
-
-
Our picks
-
Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
Tbird posted a record in VA Claims and Benefits Information,
Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL
This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:
Current Diagnosis. (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)
In-Service Event or Aggravation.
Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”-
- 0 replies
Picked By
Tbird, -
-
Post in ICD Codes and SCT CODES?WHAT THEY MEAN?
Timothy cawthorn posted an answer to a question,
Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating
Picked By
yellowrose, -
-
Post in Chevron Deference overruled by Supreme Court
broncovet posted a post in a topic,
VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.
They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.
This is not true,
Proof:
About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because when they cant work, they can not keep their home. I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason: "Its been too long since military service". This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA. And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time, mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends.
Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly. The VA is broken.
A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals. I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision. All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did.
I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt". Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day? Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in Re-embursement for non VA Medical care.
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Welcome to hadit!
There are certain rules about community care reimbursement, and I have no idea if you met them or not. Try reading this:
https://www.va.gov/resources/getting-emergency-care-at-non-va-facilities/
However, (and I have no idea of knowing whether or not you would likely succeed) Im unsure of why you seem to be so adamant against getting an increase in disability compensation.
When I buy stuff, say at Kroger, or pay bills, I have never had anyone say, "Wait! Is this money from disability compensation, or did you earn it working at a regular job?" Not once. Thus, if you did get an increase, likely you would have no trouble paying this with the increase compensation.
However, there are many false rumors out there that suggest if you apply for an increase, the VA will reduce your benefits instead.
That rumor is false but I do hear people tell Veterans that a lot. There are strict rules VA has to reduce you and, NOT ONE of those rules have anything to do with applying for an increase.
Yes, the VA can reduce your benefits, but generally only when your condition has "actually improved" under ordinary conditions of life.
Unless you contacted the VA within 72 hours of your medical treatment, you may not be eligible for reimbursement, or at least that is how I read the link, I posted above. Here are SOME of the rules the VA must comply with in order to reduce your compensation benefits:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/3.344
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Post in What is the DIC timeline?
broncovet posted an answer to a question,
Good question.
Maybe I can clear it up.
The spouse is eligible for DIC if you die of a SC condition OR any condition if you are P and T for 10 years or more. (my paraphrase).
More here:
Source:
https://www.va.gov/disability/dependency-indemnity-compensation/
NOTE: TO PROVE CAUSE OF DEATH WILL LIKELY REQUIRE AN AUTOPSY. This means if you die of a SC condtion, your spouse would need to do an autopsy to prove cause of death to be from a SC condtiond. If you were P and T for 10 full years, then the cause of death may not matter so much.
Picked By
Lemuel, -
-
Question
allan
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 7, 2003]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 7, 2003 and December 19, 2003]
[CITE: 38USC5905]
TITLE 38--VETERANS' BENEFITS
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 59--AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS
Sec. 5905. Penalty for certain acts
Whoever (1) directly or indirectly solicits, contracts for, charges,
or receives, or attempts to solicit, contract for, charge, or receive,
any fee or compensation except as provided in sections 5904 or 1984 of
this title, or (2) wrongfully withholds from any claimant or beneficiary
any part of a benefit or claim allowed and due to the claimant or
beneficiary, shall be fined as provided in title 18, or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both.
(Pub. L. 85-857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1239, Sec. 3405; Pub. L. 99-
576, title VII, Sec. 701(81), Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3298; Pub. L.
100-687, div. A, title I, Sec. 104(b), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4109;
renumbered Sec. 5905 and amended Pub. L. 102-40, title IV,
Sec. 402(b)(1), (d)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238, 239; Pub. L. 102-83,
Sec. 5©(1), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 406.)
Amendments
1991--Pub. L. 102-40 renumbered section 3405 of this title as this
section and substituted ``5904'' for ``3404''.
Pub. L. 102-83 substituted ``1984'' for ``784''.
1988--Pub. L. 100-687 substituted ``shall be fined as provided in
title 18, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both'' for ``shall be
fined not more than $500 or imprisoned at hard labor for not more than
two years, or both''.
1986--Pub. L. 99-576 substituted ``to the claimant or beneficiary''
for ``him''.
Effective Date of 1988 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 100-687 effective Sept. 1, 1989, see section
401(a) of Pub. L. 100-687, set out as an Effective Date note under
section 7251 of this title.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...Cite:+38USC5905
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
Apr 16
1
Top Posters For This Question
allan 1 post
Popular Days
Apr 16 2007
1 post
0 answers to this question
Recommended Posts