Veterans Claims Help

These kinds of cases disturb me. I expect we are going to start seeing more like this example(and mine)that were filed under “hepatitis” without a letter after them. Its a backdoor method to 86 an old rating after it has been awarded. If you have an old SC award for hep and you still haven’t converted it into a P&T, it might be time to give it some serious thought if you can.

Also, check out how the VA examiner tries to pawn off the idea that the Vet recently contracted “C” between 2002 and 2007 and that the CFS is related to this new “recent hepatitis event”. They really have a sense of humor in San Diego. What are they gonna do if the Vet is Stage 3? Say its a new, rapid growing variant? We will keep you posted on this one.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files1/0805999.txt

What disturbs me is the VA denied him in 2002. He appealed it and it went up to BVA. But look at the remand date of Jan. 2007–fully 4 years and 5 months after the denial and apparently the second remand back to the VARO. Obviously this is the third remand and may turn out to be the beginning of the end of the Vet’s Hep claim, not an adjudication of his CFS, secondary to hep. Scary. Justice delayed, gentlemen. Not Justice denied. Watch out for that Justice Bus. Incoming!

Feb. 88- Vet filed and lost a “hepatitis” claim based on hep. in service in March 77. Fast forward to July 08. The vet has a new claim before the BVA on appeal(obviously the local VARO still doesn’t believe him). Notice this time the Oklahoma Dept. Of Veterans Affairs and the Vet filed it slightly differently as a claim for “hepatitis C” instead of just “hepatitis as he did in 88. The VLJ has promptly changed the claim from a reopening of an old hep. claim(88) to an original or “brand new” claim(08). Most Vets, indeed most people, would not see the significance in this. If the Vet found old evidence from the 70s or 80s that he could submit, it would mean an effective date of 88 from the old claim and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Since this is now considered to be a new or original claim, if the Vet wins, the effective date will be the date filed, which is probably Feb. 07. The Vet will get screwed to the tune of the hundreds of thousands mentioned above simply by virtue of one letter-“C”. Be careful what you ask for. HCVets advocates filing for “hepatitis”. That may include A,B,C, AIH (autoimmune hep) or any combination of the 4. It can mean lots of money when done incorrectly as here. Read over your claim very carefully before you push “PRINT”.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files3/0823535.txt

Chances are we are going to see this become the rule rather than the exception, with or without the permission of the Vet. When that happens, expect to see the success rate sink to about 5 % from the current 15%. Five bucks says this claim is dead in the water now or will be. I hope the Vet takes this up on an NOA to the CAVC. I suspect they might have something to say on the subject of a VLJ tampering with a Vet’s claim.

Start claim in 1970. Walk away and forget to appeal. Open old claim in 87,96,98, and finally get SC in 2003. Ask for 87 effective date , but, hold on to your hat, get the 1970 effective date. This is what we refer to as “Holes in the Fabric.” One of these days VA will eliminate this lovely loophole. Until then, Gentlemen, Start your old claims engines.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp07/Files2/0718715.txt

Now that is a piece of work. Real justice, before the poor boy was planted outdoors. Amazing that they are gonna give this guy enough money to put a dent in their budget. They might have to hold off on a new 2009 limo for the VASEC on account of this little bump in the road. We are talking in excess of $500,000.00 dollars gentlemen. Sweet. From the Drew Carey VARO, no less.

August 18, 2008. This is just one of 43 cases traveling through the BVA system to utilize the precedence setting effects of Groves v. Peake in 2008. We will be seeing many more of these and a mass quantity of Motions for Reconsideration of denied appeals as this becomes more well known in the Veterans community. Tell your friends to come back and refile or reopen their denied claims based on this defect. Look at 38 CFR 3.303(b) for a list of chronic diseases as defined by Victor Alpha.

http://www.va.gov/vetapp08/Files4/0826747.txt

Thank you very much for having an open mind and adjudicating this with the benefit of the doubt doctrine,sir. Veterans may note that Clifford R. Olson is an ACTING Veterans Law Judge. I personally hope to see him as a presiding VLJ soon. I hope they don’t can him for ruling in the Vet’s favor. What else could he do but?

There is no doubt this precedent setting ruling will have far reaching effects on all aspects of VA Law, not just the psychiatric and/or chronic (i.e. 38 CFR 3.303(b))areas. Vets with hepatitis C will have the biggest field day of all with the treatment we have been accorded with respect to the “A” vs. “B” vs. “C” controversy.