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]

Hi Vike,

For some reason you are confusing my husband's 1958 claim with his CUE claim for 1985. He only filed one CUE claim and that was done in August 2005 and deals with VA 1985 Rating Decision.

You state: Charlese had stated in a couple of post last summer that she filed a CUE claim for an EED back to 1958 when her husband supposedly filed his first claim.

I have never stated that I filed a CUE claim for an EED back to 1958 when my husband supposedly filed his claim. In order for a CUE to be filed a final decision would have to be made. A decision for his 1958 claim has never been rendered. Certainly not a final decision.

You State:The CUE would make sesne to me too, if there was some sort of documentation in his records in the time frame of 1983 through 1985. I

If you read message below it states about the documentation in his records.

You also state: This was contrued by the BVA as a claim for an EED back to 1958.

Even if the VA construed this as EED being back to 1958 it still would be considered in his 1958 claim and not his CUE claim.

The point is that these are 2 separate claims which should be developed and resolved separately.

[Charleese]

Hi Berta,

I know you said we should file for Reconsideration. But do you think he should file a NOD as well. Even though they said in this SSOC that this is not a decision.

Thanks!

[john999]

I think you should do a reconsideration or an NOD but not both at the same time . We know how easy it is to get them confused. I think once they get the NOD they will drop the reconsideration request and you will have to proceed with an appeal. I don't think the VA is up to keeping two balls in the air at the same time. Don't you just have 60 days to file an NOD after a SSOC? The VA can't do anything in 60 days. That is cutting it too close.

[Vike17]

Charlese,

Let me try to explain this one more time. You said;

"I have never stated that I filed a CUE claim for an EED back to 1958 when my husband supposedly filed his claim. In order for a CUE to be filed a final decision would have to be made. A decision for his 1958 claim has never been rendered. Certainly not a final decision"

First of all you stated in a post on Aug 14, 2006;

"It wasn't until August 8, 2005 when he filed a CUE claim that he stated that he had not abandoned his 1958 claim and he let them know that his CUE claim was a separate issue and dealt with a 1985 issue"

This also coincides withthe BVA decison.

The issue/claim from 1958 has now been decided and that was done in the initial rating of June 7, 1985 (even though the VA initially denied it and was subsequently given a 0% rating a few months later on appeal). Just because a 'claim' was supposedly filed in 1958 doesn't necessarily mean that an actual 'issue' or claimed disability on the claim is still open. Supposedly your husband claimed service-connection for a left knee condition in 1958. Now that issue of service-coonection has been decided and no longer is an 'open' issue. The only thing being debated is the effective date of the issue of service-connection for the left knee.

"Even if the VA construed this as EED being back to 1958 it still would be considered in his 1958 claim and not his CUE claim"

No it would not! The issue, as I sated before, of his left knee has been decided as of 1985, and since the appeals period as long since run out, it would have to be a CUE claim for an EED in order for the VA to look at it!

"You State:The CUE would make sesne to me too, if there was some sort of documentation in his records in the time frame of 1983 through 1985...If you read message below it states about the documentation in his records"

I did not see anywhere in any of your posts from now back to last summer where you posted excerpts or similar stuff from any medical records that would indicate a evaluation of the scar and/or a higher evaluation for the left knee prior to June 22, 2000, would be warranted. This is also clearly noted by the BVA in their decision too.

"For some reason you are confusing my husband's 1958 claim with his CUE claim for 1985. He only filed one CUE claim and that was done in August 2005 and deals with VA 1985 Rating Decision"

No I'm not, it is clesrly noted by you in previous post as I've outlined above and the BVA, that you contend that there is a CUE regarding the effective date of the left knee (remember, that issue has now been decided as of 1985). Furthermore, before the BVA, or the RO for that matter, can address any CUE of a possible EED or evalution in the 1985 decision, they must first address you contentions of the EED back to 1958. The needed to do this because, if their was evidence to warrant your contentions of an EED back to 1958, the VA would need assign what is called a staged rating.

"The point is that these are 2 separate claims which should be developed and resolved separately"

No, as I stated above, they actually sort of feed of one another. I don't know why you are hung up on the idea that both issue need to be seperated. It just simply isn't the case and at the end of the doesn't really matter.

I hope this has helped you understand what and why things have transpired as they did. If you still don't understand, then I'm sorry I cannot be of any further assistance.

Vike 17

[Charleese]

Hi Vike,

Since you can not be of any further assistance than its fruitless for me to continue this conversation with you.

Thanks!