8 replies to this topic

[fisherman]

I am 100% PTSD t/p and 40% hearing with 10% tinitius, I have just been told I have diabetes II and given medicine and told to diet. My question is will my diabetes qualify me for smc under 100% plus 60% rule. thanks for your comments. I was in veitnam in 1967-68.

Edited by fisherman, 01 August 2012 - 12:25 PM.

[jvretiredvet]

Based on the numbers you provided and a 20% for DMII ........ yes, SMC-s is an inferred issue.

I am 100% PTSD t/p and 40% hearing with 10% tinitius, I have just been told I have diabetes II and given medicine and told to diet. My question is will my diabetes qualify me for smc under 100% plus 60% rule. thanks for your comments. I was in veitnam in 1967-68.

[Pete53]

If your PTSD also includes agoraphobia you should also get it. Agoraphobia makes many Veteran housebound.

[USNDW]

If you get the diabetes service connected, then yes you should meet the 60% criteria.

But as Pete pointed out, if you cannot leave the home, or leave the home enough to be considered substantial, which has been discussed on the last topic. Courts found substantial, being able to leave enough to work.

In that case, you should qualify for the 100% AND condition that keeps you housebound.

[broncovet]

Bradley vs Peake is rather complicated, and there is still controversey whether the ratings above 100% are added or combined, so the short answer is to apply, but we dont know.

The Va uses "fuzzy math" to "combine" ratings for those below 100%, rather than "add" them. So, it is unclear whether the VA will "combine" your ratings above 100% to qualify for Bradley vs Peake, or to "add" them. For you, this could make the difference. My experience is when ever there are two interpretations of a law the VA picks the "least favorable" to the Veteran, at least until the courts "spank" them and tell them no.

I know how devastating it is to Vets to have people tell them things like, "Oh, sure, apply for VA benefits..you will get your rating in 125 days, according to the VA".

Two or three years into the application process, the Veteran learns the truth, the hard way. So, I dont like to be the one who paints an overly rosey picture of the VA. You have to fight tooth and nail for everything you get at the VA. Someone pointed out about 85 % of claims are denied at the RO level, and VA employees have even came out and stated that a denial was easier to process than an award.

So, I recommend applying, but get ready for a fight. The VA is likely gonna deny or delay you any way they can.

Edited by broncovet, 07 August 2012 - 05:01 AM.

[Philip Rogers]

What everyone has posted is correct. According to your numbers you should get an SMC "s" award. I'd wait before spending the money or doing a little happy dance, tho, cuz you never know w/the VA. jmo

pr

[Teac]

Bradley vs Peake is rather complicated, and there is still controversey whether the ratings above 100% are added or combined, so the short answer is to apply, but we dont know.

The Va uses "fuzzy math" to "combine" ratings for those below 100%, rather than "add" them. So, it is unclear whether the VA will "combine" your ratings above 100% to qualify for Bradley vs Peake, or to "add" them. For you, this could make the difference. My experience is when ever there are two interpretations of a law the VA picks the "least favorable" to the Veteran, at least until the courts "spank" them and tell them no.

I know how devastating it is to Vets to have people tell them things like, "Oh, sure, apply for VA benefits..you will get your rating in 125 days, according to the VA".

Two or three years into the application process, the Veteran learns the truth, the hard way. So, I dont like to be the one who paints an overly rosey picture of the VA. You have to fight tooth and nail for everything you get at the VA. Someone pointed out about 85 % of claims are denied at the RO level, and VA employees have even came out and stated that a denial was easier to process than an award.

So, I recommend applying, but get ready for a fight. The VA is likely gonna deny or delay you any way they can.

I don't think Bradley v peake is as complicated as some make it out. The Controversy was created by member of this board, and I have not seen it anywere else except this board. And it is created because veterans want to read into the rules to benefit themselves , while I don't blame them for feeling as they do, this is one fight that I am confident will be lost. Heck after my straight 100% rating My other rating add up to 150 more .. so even I might benefit from such a schme but it will never happen...


If you understand the whole man concept than the va combined rating schedule makes sense, if you want something to argue about it doesn't make sense... but most people understand that no one can be more disabled than 100% because after all, at our best we are only 100%.

In many cases a disability rating a veteran can expect can be accurately predicted, but in reality no one really knows how the va will rate ...

Surprise.. I also disagree with the concept that it is easier to deny than to approve a claim. First the 85% that was quoted seems rather high... I would like to know where that number came from.. The reality is ,,, it is much harder to deny a claim because the rater must justify a denial based on the record he just can't make up things..

. Its kind of like that Efficency evaluation we got in the army .. it was so much eaiser to say a soldier walks on water than to say he was a poor soldier, because to say he was a poor soldier you had to have a record of counseling statements, and a history of screw ups..if you didn't have a record, then someone higher up the chain, if not the soldier being rated is going to raise cain and question the rating... no proof of a screw up the lower rating would not stand .. If a bad soldier gets a good rating, he is not going to question it, and almost no one in the chain is going to go out of their way to disprove such a rating .

the same can be said of disability ratings, a good one and it is not questioned .. a bad one and all kinds of checks are made before it is passed to the veteran, and yes many bad rating do get out to the veteran.. but not for the reason you indicated, but because of va incompentancy....

Now should a veteran request a rating .. in my opinion only if he knows in his heart that he has a valid claim and the evidence to back it up,,,, he may be wrong but if he feels he is correct he should apply regardless.. after all no one has all the correct answers and sometimes it takes more than one set of eyes to come to the correct one...

Anyway thats my two cents and who knows I could be wrong.....

[jvretiredvet]

Dang, I can never find that "Like Post" button when I need it.

I don't think Bradley v peake is as complicated as some make it out. The Controversy was created by member of this board, and I have not seen it anywere else except this board. And it is created because veterans want to read into the rules to benefit themselves , while I don't blame them for feeling as they do, this is one fight that I am confident will be lost. Heck after my straight 100% rating My other rating add up to 150 more .. so even I might benefit from such a schme but it will never happen...


If you understand the whole man concept than the va combined rating schedule makes sense, if you want something to argue about it doesn't make sense... but most people understand that no one can be more disabled than 100% because after all, at our best we are only 100%.

In many cases a disability rating a veteran can expect can be accurately predicted, but in reality no one really knows how the va will rate ...

Surprise.. I also disagree with the concept that it is easier to deny than to approve a claim. First the 85% that was quoted seems rather high... I would like to know where that number came from.. The reality is ,,, it is much harder to deny a claim because the rater must justify a denial based on the record he just can't make up things..

. Its kind of like that Efficency evaluation we got in the army .. it was so much eaiser to say a soldier walks on water than to say he was a poor soldier, because to say he was a poor soldier you had to have a record of counseling statements, and a history of screw ups..if you didn't have a record, then someone higher up the chain, if not the soldier being rated is going to raise cain and question the rating... no proof of a screw up the lower rating would not stand .. If a bad soldier gets a good rating, he is not going to question it, and almost no one in the chain is going to go out of their way to disprove such a rating .

the same can be said of disability ratings, a good one and it is not questioned .. a bad one and all kinds of checks are made before it is passed to the veteran, and yes many bad rating do get out to the veteran.. but not for the reason you indicated, but because of va incompentancy....

Now should a veteran request a rating .. in my opinion only if he knows in his heart that he has a valid claim and the evidence to back it up,,,, he may be wrong but if he feels he is correct he should apply regardless.. after all no one has all the correct answers and sometimes it takes more than one set of eyes to come to the correct one...

Anyway thats my two cents and who knows I could be wrong.....

[fisherman]

I applied for under agent orange my diabetes II for my service connection from Viet Nam service in the first part of August. I am taking metformin 500mg twice a day, and told to diet and exercise. Today Sept 27 I received a phone call from the VA making an appointment for next tuesday Oct 2 2012 for C&P for my claim. I don't know what to make of this because I thought I would have to go threw a big process to get this done. In my claim I didn't ask for SMC at this time will they award this without asking? I asked the person who called if I needed blood work and she said no just bring my medicines I take. I am completely at a loss about this, could someone help me to understand what I should expect. Many thanks