I note with satisfaction that a new voice lends itself to the discussion. I welcome that. Nothing gets looked at better than when someone comes along and analyzes how you do it. Fortunately, after building houses for forty years, the quickest way to get them up correctly is always welcomed, no matter the source. If you’ve only been doing it for four years and offer some unusual insight like “Gee. How come you always do it like that? If you cut the plywood when it’s down here, isn’t it easier than doing it after you jack the wall up?” This is the essence of learning. I’m lazy. If it made the job go faster, that meant I didn’t have to pay out so much for labor.

Robert K comes to our site and asks equally pertinent questions. Why this or Why that?  A picture is worth a thousand words-as is a  BvA decision. Every decision shows what ROs have done (or not done) on any given disease or injury. The reaction of the Veterans Law Judge is of interest to determine which way another Vet’s claim will be decided. If something terribly unique is found and disseminated for other DIYers, it becomes a way to win. Teaching a man to fish is an apt analogy.

vA does not volunteer the info needed to succeed. They do not suggest a new ploy or gambit that may result in you winning. It’s up to you to find the can opener and do it. My stock in trade here is to show others the technique vA uses to defeat you. That it happens 85% of the time is no coincidence. By looking carefully at the denial, I  analyze how he could have done it differently. Many’s the time in these decisions where the VLJ gets shoe in mouth disease and gleefully divulges that a Vet did this, but not that. He or she cannot conceal the glee in their comment to my way of thinking. Nevertheless, the knowledge is exposed and their hand tips forward enough to see their cards.

VA constantly reinvents the denial process. We are all familiar with that. Reading a 1992 hep or back decision reveals that. Since their technique constantly evolves, it behooves Vets to learn these new tricks and avoid them. The ex parte system demands it. If you submit everything you have with no knowledge of the process, you might be taken aback that you lost. If you were unschooled in the process, you wouldn’t see an age-old semantic argument and realize how easy it would have been to counter it by closing off the loophole and using different phrases.

The beauty of BVA decisions are that they are numerous and very predictable to me now. I do see a quirk every once in awhile and note it.  You who are new to this gain some insight. Those of you who have experienced it firsthand can begin to see the pattern and perhaps help others avoid it. What is apparent also is that there are innumerable web sites for Vets that teach nothing more than the age old “claim bone connected to the denial bone; denial bone connected to the NOD bone; Nod bone connected to the SOC bone; SOC bone connected to the DRO bone, etc. This teaches you how to be a VSO/mailman  but does nothing to increase your acumen for winning.

Winning is all about reconnaissance. Success is increased by knowing what your opponent is going to do (or is famous for) and preparing adequately to deflect it. Since the VA is so predictable in their denials, a BVA decision gives you the perfect teaching moment. What it also give you is an avenue to explore the legal concepts that support it. If the Vet wins, you see the precepts that supported the successful claim.  When a Vet loses, one observes the detritus.

I have a host of claims under Frivolous filings to show you why you shouldn’t file. These are, for the most part, Vets who made life choices that have now come home to roost. Virtually none will succeed at this. Conversely there are a number that demonstrate losses that should have won. There are examples of claims that shouldn’t have won but did. Each one is unique and contains its nugget of knowledge. I add humor or personalize them to embody what I feel the Vet emotes via his claims motions and arguments. The decisions are like dry dog food if I don’t add medical or legal insight that illuminates what’s ensuing.

For you, Robert K, it seems that is over the top or spoils the dry legalese. I can’t help you. If I changed the blog to accommodate you and removed all the running commentary  other readers would complain. If I posted wins with no accompanying discussion of how or why, I’d just be plagiarizing the BVA site and serving no purpose other than cut and paste.

Why a Vet wins or loses is paramount to how you approach your claim. As an example, I do not often advocate DRO reviews due to their abysmal success rate. That is not to say a Vet should never entertain one, but that each case is unique and evidence is what we win or lose on here. If you have new exculpatory evidence that they haven’t seen yet, it may be that a well-reasoned explanation in person with the new evidence in hand will carry the day. What few know is once you are denied and file the NOD, a DRO is going to review it for legal sufficiency anyway. If you bring up some major flaw, he will spot it or should. The important thing to know is you do not have to wait a year for a DRO review to get that closer examination. Simply filing the NOD provokes it. When money is tight, a win at the RO can be the difference between home and homeless. A long, drawn out legal battle of three years is death to your marriage and you finances. Its often  a pyrrhic victory to finally win a decade-long battle at the CAVC and realize you’re almost too old to enjoy it.

That’s what this site is about. Dissect and discuss. Examine why Vet A got a bye and Vet B the circular file. Granted, a majority of the cases I read are ones where the Vet has no nexus. What is so egregious is that they are almost all defended by the ones Congress appointed (read chartered). If that many are not getting good advice, it stands to reason that sites like this are needed to provide that knowledge. Denials often teach more that wins.

If I had not studied up on Porphyria Cutanea Tarda (PCT), I would have never known I could get 40% for it (phlebotomies) rather than 10% (scarring). VA sure didn’t volunteer that when they rated me. I happened to read it in a 1997 PCT ratings increase. I found three examples, put in for it and won.  Soemhow I don’t see a VSO coming up with that for me. Finding the optimum reading for your circumstances, the most liberal interpretation for a DM2 rating or SC for bent brain have one thing in common-the legal technique employed. vA has 500 or more lawyers arrayed against you and your VSO if you have one. Take a page from their playbook and learn how not to lose.