Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Going Back Past Appeal
hadit.com Veterans Forum > General VA Claims Questions & Information > (VA Claims Research) Veterans Affairs Claims and Benefits Research
jjrbus
In 1969 I was awarded 10% for gun shot wound right shoulder. In 1999 I filed an appeal. In 2009 I was awarded 20%, 20%, 20% and 10% on the appeal. Is there any way to go after the 30 years of underpayment?? I think I know the answer but just had to ask. JIm
Testvet
QUOTE (jjrbus @ Nov 25 2009, 06:09 PM) *
In 1969 I was awarded 10% for gun shot wound right shoulder. In 1999 I filed an appeal. In 2009 I was awarded 20%, 20%, 20% and 10% on the appeal. Is there any way to go after the 30 years of underpayment?? I think I know the answer but just had to ask. JIm


You leave more questions open than you ask you say you appealed you gun shot award of 10% that is only one disability and then you list 4 awards 3 of 20% and one of 10% but you don't say what they are for or how your appeal was filed did you file a new claim 30 years later?

Normally the VA will not even address a 30 year pld appeal after one year you can't file an appeal you can file new claims or you can possibly re-open with new evidence but that would only start the compensation when you file the "new claim" they won't go back 30 years unlesss you can prove why your claims is a Clear and Unmistable error on the VARO's part......

normally when you appeal one issue they do not award 4 different percentages on one issue you must have had 4 issues claimed not one
deltaj
QUOTE (jjrbus @ Nov 25 2009, 06:09 PM) *
In 1969 I was awarded 10% for gun shot wound right shoulder. In 1999 I filed an appeal. In 2009 I was awarded 20%, 20%, 20% and 10% on the appeal. Is there any way to go after the 30 years of underpayment?? I think I know the answer but just had to ask. JIm

I think you need to be more specific about what conditions V.A. granted these ratings for. V.A. sometimes makes errors in rating gunshot wounds and it rating through and through shrapnel wounds. These errors often involve failure to rate all of the muscle groups injured. I suggest you obtain copies of your C folder and then have Disabled American Veterans review your records to see if V.A. made an error in your initial rating.
Philip Rogers
I agree w/deltaj, with the exception of using the DAV but that's another subject. It is possible that a CUE was made back in '69. The VA often made errors back then. We need more info. As for your "1999 appeal," that doesn't compute, as you had one yr to appeal from the '1969 decision award date. Need more info. Please explain. Also your award was in 2009. Why 10 yrs later? Was it a CUE you filed in '99?

pr


QUOTE (deltaj @ Dec 5 2009, 05:22 AM) *
I think you need to be more specific about what conditions V.A. granted these ratings for. V.A. sometimes makes errors in rating gunshot wounds and it rating through and through shrapnel wounds. These errors often involve failure to rate all of the muscle groups injured. I suggest you obtain copies of your C folder and then have Disabled American Veterans review your records to see if V.A. made an error in your initial rating.

Berta
Yes we need more and look up Myler V Derwinski-

GSW which the VA awarded for but failed to consider muscular involvement-

CUE award under Derwinski's regime with retro back to 1953.
Hoppy

The link below very interesting case awarding cue back to 1966. The veteran actually filed two cue claims. One was awarded and one was denied. The central problem in the one that was denied is that they interpreted it as a claim for a higher rating. The claim that was awarded was based on the fact that there was a way noted in the rating schedule to assign a 10% rating that was ignored in 1966. The case involves injuries sustained in a car accident.


http://www4.va.gov/vetapp09/files1/0907023.txt


Berta
I put A few important CUE claims that were granted in the CUE forum today-

There are many ways in which the VA can make a "legal" error to a veteran's financial detriment.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.