'It's an Embarrassment, Absolutely'
 Print  Email
Veterans React to Woodruff Documentary With Complaints of Treatment at Local VA Hospitals March 6, 2007 — - Since ABC aired Bob Woodruff's documentary "To Iraq and Back," we have received more than a thousand e-mails from veterans and their families, with many claiming they have had problems dealing with the Veteran's Benefits Administration as they seek rehabilitation from injuries sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan. Read More...
|
100% or Individual Unemployability Benefits (TDIU)
Print Email
This is by no means an extensive list and we recommend calling the VA at 1-800-827-1000 with any questions about the following benefits.
Dental treatment
Educational Assistance for Dependents: (under chapter 35) Veteran Must be rated 100% and permanent and total by the VA.
Civilian health and medical program for dependents/survivors (CHAMPVA) Veteran Must be rated 100% and permanent and total by the VA. Read More...
|
38 CFR 4.1 Essentials of evaluative rating.
Print Email
This rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. For the application of this schedule, accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations are required, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition. Over a period of many years, a veteran's disability claim may require reratings in accordance with changes in laws, medical knowledge and his or her physical or mental condition. It is thus essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history. [41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976] Read More...
|
A Veterans Benefits Affairs Rater's View
Print Email
"Worth a read" - Tbird(webmaster HadIt.com) First, allow me to introduce myself with some background info. I am a veteran, a nurse, a woman, and decide VA disability claims. I share many of the frustrations of veterans when I see claims that have not been properly or expeditiously decided. It is my mission to correct these where possible. I have called errors on prior decisions and awarded benefits back to the original claim date. I'm sure that I also have made errors and hope others have caught and corrected these. Read More...
|
Agent Orange Symptoms and Effects
Print Email
Agent Orange Symptoms and Effects
The following is a list of reported Agent Orange symptoms and effects:
1. Gastrointestinal: loss of appetite (anorexia) nausea vomiting diarrhea constipation yellowing of eyes, skin, and urine (Jaundice) liver inflammation (Hepatitis) vomiting blood (Hematemesis) abdominal pain gastric hyperplasia gastric ulcers Read More...
|
Aid and Attendance veterans benefit
Print Email
What is Aid and Attendance? Aid and attendance is an additional amount available to eligible veterans and dependents who are entitled to VA pension or VA compensation. Who is eligible for aid and attendance? A veteran, dependent spouse, or surviving spouse who is a patient in a licensed nursing home because of mental or physical incapacity or otherwise determined to be in need of the regular aid and attendance of another person, may be entitled to higher income limitations or additional benefits, depending on the type of benefit received. Read More...
|
ALBERT R. OLSON, APPELLANT, V. JESSE BROWN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Print Email
{5 Vet. App. 431} MANKIN, Judge: Albert R. Olson appeals the November 27, 1990, Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision which denied entitlement to an increased evaluation for undifferentiated schizophrenic reaction, currently evaluated as 70% disabling, and determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claim for a total evaluation (100%) based on individual unemployability, retroactive to July 1981. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs filed a motion for remand for the Board to consider whether appellant is currently entitled to a total evaluation based on individual unemployability. Appellant opposes this motion and contends that the decision which terminated his individual unemployability benefits contained clear and unmistakable error (CUE). We agree and are compelled to reverse the November 1990 BVA decision, as to this issue, and remand the matter for the Board to reinstate appellant's former total rating based on individual unemployability (IU), with an effective date of July 2, 1981. We affirm that part of the decision which denied an increased rating for schizophrenia. Read More...
|
ALFRED GLEICHER, APPELLANT, V. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Print Email
ALFRED GLEICHER, APPELLANT, V. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
2 Vet App 262 Vet. App. 26; 1991 US Vet App LEXIS 1361991 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 136
No. 90-147
December 17, 1991, Decided
UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS
Before KRAMER, MANKIN, and HOLDAWAY, Associate Judges.
Counsel Rick Surratt (non-attorney practitioner) was on the brief for appellant.
Robert E. Coy, Acting General Counsel, Barry M. Tapp, Assistant General Counsel, Andrew J. Mullen, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and John D. Lindsay were on the pleadings for appellee.
Opinion
Editorial Information: Prior History
On Appellee's Motion for Summary Affirmance
Opinion by: HOLDAWAY
{2 Vet. App. 27} HOLDAWAY, Associate Judge: The appellant, Alfred Gleicher, a veteran of World War II and a former prisoner of war, appeals a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) which denied him a total disability rating for a psychiatric disorder. The Court holds that the BVA was not clearly erroneous in determining that appellant was not entitled to a rating in excess of 70%. The Court also holds that the BVA was clearly erroneous in finding that appellant was able to follow or secure a substantially gainful occupation. Appellant, therefore, as a matter of law, is entitled to a total disability rating under _CFR_4.16 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (1991). Read More...
|
Amos E. Peyton, Appellant, v. Edward J. Derwinski
Print Email
{1 Vet. App. 283} This case comes to us on an appeal from a March 15, 1990, Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision reducing the appellant veteran's disability compensation rating from 70 to 50 percent for his service-connected psychiatric disability. We vacate the Board's decision and remand for readjudication with specific findings and conclusions regarding all applicable issues and regulations as well as a statement of reasons or bases pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4004 (d)(1) (1988) and our decision in Gilbert v. Derwinski, U.S. Vet. App. No. 89-53 (Oct. 12, 1990).
Read More...
|
Applying for VA Benefits
Print Email
One of the more difficult tasks for a returning veteran is applying for the many VA benefits. The unknown of "should I," "would I qualify," "how do I apply," or "where do I go for help" can be a frustrating experience. VA intends to ease those frustrations and facilitate your transition from active participation in armed conflict back to civilian life with some basic tips for applying for benefits. Read More...
|
Area Veterans hope for help with elder care expenses
Print Email
Little known veteran's benefit can help Gladwin County Record Last updated: Wednesday, March 07th, 2007 11:25:23 AM GLADWIN COUNTY -- A little known benefit through the Veteran’s Administration is beginning to make a difference in the lives of veterans and their surviving spouses in northern Michigan. This benefit assists in paying for elder care expenses either through an assisted living facility, nursing home or in their own homes. Read More...
|
Automobile Adaptive Equipment
Print Email
Check there to make sure you have the most current information ADAPTIVE EQUIPMENT
a. Requests for automobile adaptive equipment for eligible Chiefs, Prosthetics Services, require the approval of the Chief Consultant, Prosthetic and Sensory Aids Service (PSAS) Strategic Health Group (SHG), VHA Headquarters, prior to being submitted to the regional office. NOTE: VA Form 10-1394, Application for Adaptive Equipment – Motor Vehicle Read More...
|
Benefit Tips
Print Email
The newest generation of combat veterans receives the same benefits traditionally associated with military service. That includes disability compensation for those with service-connected health problems, VA pensions for veterans with limited incomes, VA home loan guarantees and educational assistance for those who contributed to the Montgomery GI Bill while in the military. Other governmental agencies have their own benefits for veterans. The federal government and many state, territory and local governments have a hiring preference for veterans. Additional state benefits are available for veterans. Read More...
|
Board of Veterans' Appeals Decisions Search
Print Email
Board of Veterans' Appeals Decisions Search | If you would like to conduct an on-line search of BVA's decisions, enter the word or group of words you are looking for in the block below. From the resulting list, you can connect directly to individual decision texts or you can return to this page to conduct additional searches. Decisions are current through April 16, 2007. |
|
Read More...
|
Breeden v. Principi, No. 01-2095 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
Print Email
Breeden v. Principi, No. 01-2095 , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS , 17 Vet. App. 475; 2004 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 127, March 15, 2004, Decided, As Amended March 22, 2004.
OVERVIEW: Remand by United States Board of Veterans' Appeals was not a final decision, and thus United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims did not have jurisdiction to hear veteran's appeal, as none of the issues were subject to a final determination.
CORE TERMS: veteran, combat, stressors, finality, final decision, per curiam, supplemental, lack of jurisdiction, exercise jurisdiction, diagnosis PTSD, unverified stressor Read More...
|
Casualty of War: Mental Health
Print Email
Monday, Mar. 12, 2007
By Claudia Wallis
While many news reports have focused on the high rates of devastating physical injuries among soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a new study, released today, measures another form of casualty: mental illness.
The study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, was conducted by Dr. Karen Seal and colleagues at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center and the University of California, San Francisco. According to their analysis, about one third of the 103,788 returning veterans seen at V.A. facilities between Sept. 30, 2001 and Sept. 30, 2005 were diagnosed with mental illness or a psycho-social disorder — such as homelessness and marital problems, including domestic violence.
Read More...
|
Dingess-Hartman, Kent, and the VCAA
Print Email
The Dingess- Hartman CAVC decision of 2006 generated thousands of VARO letters to veterans with VA claims pending as of March 3, 2006. Widows as well as veterans as well as claimants who had received a decision a year prior to the Dingess Hartman enactment date were supposed to also receive this letter. Read More...
|
Gerald M. Hohol, Appellant, v. Edward J. Derwinski, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
Print Email
The veteran performed military service from August 1965 through April 1969, which included combat duty in Vietnam. On December 30, 1983, he underwent an examination for compensation and pension purposes. The Veterans' Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) (VA) doctor reported that appellant was "markedly tense" and anxious, that his sleep pattern was disturbed by nightmares, and that he hallucinated often. R. at 23. The doctor also found appellant "alert and fully oriented" and his conversation "to be relevant [showing] no looseness of associations." Appellant was diagnosed as suffering from PTSD. Based on this examination, the VA Regional Office (RO) granted appellant service connection for PTSD, and rated it as 100% disabling on February 1, 1984. Read More...
|
Global Asset Functioning Scale
Print Email
The GAF is a 100-point tool rating overall psychological, social and occupational functioning of people over 18 years of age and older. It excludes physical and environmental impairment. The GAF is included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) in the section on multi-axial assessments. Read More...
|
Gulf Veterans Information
Print Email
The United States has made a long-term commitment to help Afghanistan rebuild itself after years of war. The U.S., along with others in the international community, currently provides resources and expertise to Afghanistan in a variety of areas, including humanitarian relief and assistance, capacity-building, security needs, counter-narcotic programs, and infrastructure projects. The U.S. also supports the Afghan Government in its efforts to establish a framework for a vibrant civil society, one that emphasizes democratic principles through a rule of law and creates accountable and transparent forms of government. Read More...
|
Herbicide agents presumptive conditions
Print Email
Disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents. If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the following diseases shall be service-connected if the requirements of Sec. 3.307(a)(6) are met even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided further that the rebuttable presumption provisions of Sec. 3.307(d) are also satis
Read More...
|
Housebound
Print Email
Housebound
What is housebound allowance?
Housebound allowance is an additional amount available to eligible veterans and dependents who are entitled to VA pension or VA compensation. Read More...
|
Internet Medical Research and Your VA Claim
Print Email
The VARO likes to say (if they in fact acknowledge any ineternet abstracts or treatises you have sent in support of claim) that the information, while factual, is general in nature and not specific to the claimed disability of the veteran. (or some BS like that)
Often this can be overcome- say the vet has diabetes which VA rates but fails to sc and rate his secondary cataracts. Read More...
|
JOHN A. MURINCSAK, APPELLANT, V. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Print Email
JOHN A. MURINCSAK, APPELLANT, V. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
2 Vet App 3632 Vet. App. 363; 1992 US Vet App LEXIS 1021992 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 102
No. 90-222
April 24, 1992, Decided
UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS
Before KRAMER, MANKIN, and STEINBERG, Associate Judges.
Disposition
BVA DECISION IS VACATED AND REMANDED
Counsel William G. Smith for appellant.
Stephen A. Bergquist, with whom Robert E. Coy, Acting General Counsel, Barry M. Tapp, Assistant General Counsel, and Pamela L. Wood, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee.
Opinion
Editorial Information: Prior History
On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals
Opinion by: MANKIN
{2 Vet. App. 364} MANKIN, Associate Judge: John A. Murincsak appeals from a December 5, 1989, Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision, which denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability. Because the BVA decision contains errors of law, we vacate the BVA decision and remand the case to the BVA with specific instructions to proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion.
Read More...
|
JOHN WILLIAM TERNUS III, APPELLANT, v. JESSE BROWN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Print Email
{6 Vet. App. 371} IVERS, Judge: John William Ternus III appeals a September 6, 1991, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) which denied an effective date earlier than September 13, 1989, for a 100% rating for service-connected schizophrenia on the grounds that there was no clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in an October 1985 rating reduction or a September 1987 continuation of that reduced rating. John W. Ternus, BVA 91-26587 (Sept. 6, 1991). The Secretary has filed a motion for summary affirmance. The Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (a). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the September 1991 decision of the BVA. Read More...
|
Law - VA Service Connected Disability Compensation
Print Email
Everything Veterans Affairs does with your service connected disability compensation claim, is goverened by law. You may want to bookmark this page as a reference as you proceed with your claim.
It can be a bit daunting. Just remember the U.S.C. is the law, the C.F.R. is how they interpret the law and last but certainly not least is the V.A. adjudication manuals that is how they apply the law. The section of the law that covers the veterans benefits is Title 38 in the U.S.C. in the C.F.R. is usually written 38 C.F.R. or something similar, V.A. frequently requested manuals are listed below Read More...
|
Martin M. Karnas, Appellant, v. Edward J. Derwinski
Print Email
{1 Vet. App. 308} In its decision of September 13, 1989, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) denied appellant's claim for a restoration of his previous 100-percent service-connected disability rating for schizophrenia from his present 70-percent rating for the same illness. In so doing, the BVA made reversible errors of both fact and law. The decision {1 Vet. App. 309} of the BVA is reversed and the case is remanded to it with instructions to proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion. Read More...
|
MAYNARD S. DOFFLEMYER, APPELLANT, V. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Print Email
{2 Vet. App. 278} FARLEY, Associate Judge: Appellant, Maynard S. Dofflemyer, appeals a Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision of June 4, 1990, which purported to deny an increased rating for undifferentiated schizophrenia for which appellant had been service-connected at 100% from May 21, 1969, until its reduction to 10% effective May 1, 1989. Appellant argues that the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO) ratings decision of February 17, 1989, reducing his disability rating from 100% to 10%, and the BVA decision affirming the reduction, are void ab initio, as both the VARO and the BVA failed to apply _CFR_3.343 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.343(a) and 3.344(a). Because the Court finds that the BVA disregarded the provisions of § 3.343(a) and § 3.443(a), under 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(3) (formerly § 4061(a)(3)), we are compelled to reverse the BVA decision and remand the matter with a direction that appellant's former 100% rating be reinstated with an effective date of May 1, 1989.
Read More...
|
No VA Claim Filed Yet?
Print Email
Be sure to checkout our forums for more information HadIt.com Forums
Eligibility
In general , the claimant must be a veteran or the dependent or survivor of a veteran‚ in order to be eligible. For VA purposes, the definition of veteran‚ is‚ a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.‚ Source: 38CFR3.1(d)
Entitlement
Disability compensation. (1) Basic entitlement for a veteran exists if the veteran is disabled as the result of a personal injury or disease (including aggravation of a condition existing prior to service) while in active service if the injury or the disease was incurred or aggravated in line of duty. Source: 38CFR3.1(b)
In plain English and general terms. In order to receive service connected disability compensation through Veterans Affairs. You must have an other than dishonorable discharge. And you must have evidence that the disability occurred or was aggravated in the line of duty.
Read More...
|
RAYMOND L. SMITH, APPELLANT, V. JESSE BROWN, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Print Email
{5 Vet. App. 336} FARLEY, Judge: Appellant Raymond L. Smith appeals from a January 3, 1991, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) which denied his claims of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability as secondary to his service-connected left knee disability, and to a rating in excess of 10% for postoperative residuals of a left medial meniscectomy (excision of a crescent shaped disk of fibrocartilage attached to the superior articular surface of the tibia, DORLAND'S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY, 1005 (27th ed. 1988)) with degenerative joint disease (left knee condition). The Board stated that a preponderance of the evidence did not demonstrate that a causal relationship existed between appellant's service-connected left knee condition and his right knee disorder, and that no more than a slight impairment of the left knee had been shown, thus not warranting an increase in his 10% disability rating. Because the BVA failed to support the determinations made in the January 3, 1991, decision with sufficient reasons or bases, the Court will remand both issues to the Board for readjudication. Read More...
|
ROGER J. SCHAFRATH, APPELLANT, V. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Print Email
ROGER J. SCHAFRATH, APPELLANT, V. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. 1 Vet App 5891 Vet. App. 589; 1991 US Vet App LEXIS 1271991 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 127 No. 89-114 November 26, 1991, Decided UNITED STATES COURT OF VETERANS APPEALS Before FARLEY, MANKIN, and STEINBERG, Associate Judges. November 26, 1991, Filed Counsel Roger J. Schafrath, pro se. Raoul L. Carroll, then General Counsel, Barry M. Tapp, Assistant General Counsel, Pamela L. Wood, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and Stephen A. Bergquist were on the pleadings for appellee. Opinion Editorial Information: Prior History On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals and On Appellee's Motion for Summary Affirmance. Editorial Information: Subsequent History As Amended December 11, 1991. Opinion by: STEINBERG {1 Vet. App. 590} STEINBERG, Associate Judge: The veteran, Roger J. Schafrath, appeals the reduction of his rating for a bone spur of the right elbow from ten percent to noncompensable. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) upheld the rating reduction based upon a physician's report indicating that there was no limitation of motion in the right elbow. The Board erroneously failed to apply the provisions of _CFR_4.40 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 to determine whether the appellant's compensable rating should be continued because of "functional loss" due to pain, and the provisions of other regulations requiring that the entire recorded history of the disability be considered. Hence, the BVA decision was void ab initio and it is reversed with instructions that the Board order reinstatement of the 10-percent rating. The Board also breached its statutory duty to assist the appellant in developing facts pertinent to the claim and to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for aspects of its decision. Read More...
|
ROGER J. SCHAFRATH, APPELLANT, V. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Print Email
{1 Vet. App. 590} STEINBERG, Associate Judge: The veteran, Roger J. Schafrath, appeals the reduction of his rating for a bone spur of the right elbow from ten percent to noncompensable. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) upheld the rating reduction based upon a physician's report indicating that there was no limitation of motion in the right elbow. The Board erroneously failed to apply the provisions of _CFR_4.40 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 to determine whether the appellant's compensable rating should be continued because of "functional loss" due to pain, and the provisions of other regulations requiring that the entire recorded history of the disability be considered. Hence, the BVA decision was void ab initio and it is reversed with instructions that the Board order reinstatement of the 10-percent rating. The Board also breached its statutory duty to assist the appellant in developing facts pertinent to the claim and to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for aspects of its decision.
Read More...
|
|
