Supplemental Statement Of Case

[Charleese]

Hi Everyone, hope someone can help me with this.

My husband received a Letter with Supplemental Statement of Case dated 4/10/07 attached to it. Letter starts off stating "This is in further reference to the appeal you have filed from our decision on your claim for benefits. It is not a decision on the appeal you have initiated. It is a Supplemental Statement of the Case which contains changes or additions to the original Statement of the Case sent to you on 8/11/2006. A previous Supplemental Statement of the Case was sent on 10/20/06."

In the 4/10/07 Supplemental Statement of Case under the heading Decision it states: "Entitlement to an earlier effective date for status post fracture left tibial tubercle with osteoarthritic changes and chronic chondromalacia, 30 percent from 06/22/200 is not established."

My question is how in letter it can state that it is not a decision on the appeal initiated and then under Decision in Supplemental Statement of Case it states Entitlement to an earlier effective date .....is not established. Has anyone experienced this before and is the VA allowed to do this?

To us this is totally confusing. If a decision was not made why are they stating in Supplemental Statement of Case that one was made not to established an earlier effective date.

Any help hadit members can give me on this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[Charleese]

Thanks Berta,

Do you see anything in that CUE which speaks of a date prior to September 1983. If so please point it out to us.

[Berta]

Nope- it is the VA's war of the words- in my opinion-

hoping you will accept their decision and go away-

[Charleese]

Hi Berta,

As you can see by this message I am still confused by VA statement of prior to 1983.

I noticed in 1985 rating decision it sates "0% from 9/9/83.

In my husband's CUE it states "I request that you render a favorable decision on this claim under CUE, as it would manifestly change the outcome of the 1985 decision, providing an earlier effective date, and a proper 1985 rating, and would reflect a decision that is legally appropriate to the medical evidence you had in 1985."

They took his statement "providing an earlier effective date" to be an earlier effective date prior to 1983.

My question is if 1985 rating decision states "0% from 9/9/83 how can they said prior to 1983. Wouldn't it be an earlier effective date from 9/9/83 on.

Thanks

[Vike17]

Charlese,

After going back and reading, re-reading and again re-reading you prior posts from last summer to try and make head or tails of what is going on in your situation, I finally found your BVA decision!

http://www.va.gov/vetapp05/files5/0532290.txt

This decision pretty much spells things out. As I stated before last summer to you in previous posts, you are barking up the wrong tree as far as an earlier effective date back to Dec. 1958, unless you can produce some type of copies from VA back then of a date stamped application or subsequent letters from them sometime shortly there after. This may sound really heartless and it's depressing when this happens, but the bottom line is if your husband did indeed file back then, it appears that application got lost somewhere. He really should have made copies back then. I know that's easy to say now, but it's the sad reality.

What VA is actually saying that, since there isn't any records by VA of the application of 1958, any subsequent claim of an earlier effective date (EED) would have to be considered sometime betwen 1983 and the increase awarded June 22, 2000.

It also looks like the BVA remanded this at least twice to try and see if there was indeed any records of the claim from 1958.

Here's a short synopsis of the claim so everyone can undersatnd it better;

1) Apparently filed for left knee condition in Dec. 1958 - no documented follow-ups ect...

2)applied/re-applied for left knee condition on Sept. 9, 1983

3) Feb. 1985 denied service-connection for left knee

4) April 1985 file NOD for denial of service-connection of lleft knee

5) June 7, 1985, awarded 0% service-connection for left knee on appeal from April 1985

6) June 22, 2000, applied for an increase for left knee

7) March 2001 Rating increased to 10% for left knee

8) April 2003 appeal filed on the March 2001 decision (probably a CUE because the appeals period had expired and it isn'r specifically noted in the BVA decision).

9) Oct. 2003 granted 10% for tender scar effective June 22, 2000 (again proabably part of the CUE claim)

10) April 2004 granted 30% for osteoarthritic changes in the left knee and a separate 30 percent evaluation for recurrent subluxation of

the left knee (again a portion of the CUE claim).

Vike 17

Edited May 8, 2007 by Vike17

[Charleese]

Hi Vike,

Thanks for replying. However, the CUE that you are referencing is the CUE that VA called on theirselves and that's how he got the 10% increase.

The CUE that I am referring to in my message to Berta is the one she helped me with and it was filed with them in August of 2005 for their 1985 rating decision which states" 0% from 09/09/1983".

In his CUE he is stating that "still the pain and scarring obviously had to be as present in 1985 when the 0% SC award was made, as it is now. Also the rating disability codes that VA applied at that time failed to be proper."

He goes on to state the "reasons and bases" that 3 rating specialists signed and agreed to in the 1j985 decision in no way legally complies with the proper rating codes nor do these reasons and bases take into consideration the secondary osteoarthritic changes as noted within 2 separate documents in the medical records."

He further states: " I request that you render a favorable decision this claim under CUE, as it would manifestly change the outcome of the 1985 decision, providing an earlier effective date, and a proper 1985 rating, and would reflect a decision that is leagally appropriate to the medical evidence you had in 1985."

The earlier effective date that he is referring to in his CUE is from 09/09/1983 that is on 1985 rating decision and not prior to 1983 as their SSOC states.

He never filed a CUE for an earlier effective date prior to 1983. His CUE is for an earlier effective date from 09/09/1983 as outlined in 1985 rating decision.

Furthermore, they conveiently failed to acknowledge their 1985 rating decision in this 4/10/07 SSOC. They denied him CUE stating that there was no previous determination decision when there was, there 1985 rating decision became final on June 7, 1986.

He is asking for a favorable decion on his claim under CUE, because he, Berta and I believe would manifestly change the outcome of the 1985 decision, providing an earlier effective date from 09/09/1983 on up to 6/22/2000.

[Ricky]

I read the BVA decision and have to agree with Charleese. I do not see any request for an EED earlier than 1983.