Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  coriemboh : (19 November 2014 - 08:29 AM) Hold Time For Peggy Was Approximately 1 Minute. That Was 17 Minutes Ago. They Really Need To Change This Hold Music.
@  Tbird : (17 November 2014 - 02:42 PM) Stretch Thanks For The Extra Contribution To Our Fundraiser This Month.
@  maxwell18 : (16 November 2014 - 09:04 PM) I Still Have To Bitch About The Navy Hosp Cutting My Meds By 2/3 On My Norco. I Contacted Customer Service Or What Ever You Want To Call It Who In Turn Contacted The Navy Hosp Pensacola Commander Who In Turn Did Nothing. Thanks To All The People That Are Affair Of There Jobs And I Feel That Medical Malpractice Should Come Into Place. I Guess Just Do What Ever They Want To Because They Can, But Don't Give A Sh T For The Vets That Suppose To Being Supporting From All The Military  organizations. This Is Not The Way They Have Been Trained And Promised To Do. 
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:26 AM) Delayed Onset Tinnitus - Ref To Va Training Letter 10-028 - Link - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/single-Judge-Application-Va-Training-Letter-10-028-Delayed-Onset-Tinnitus/
@  carlie : (16 November 2014 - 11:03 AM) Here's A Good Tinnitus Link To Check Out From M21-1 Change Dated Jan 10,2014 - Http://veteranclaims.wordpress.com/tag/section-B-Duty-Military-Occupational-Specialty-Mos-Noise-Exposure-Listing-Fast-Letter-10-35-Tinnitus-Hearing-Loss-Vbms-Rating-Decision-Tools/
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:08 AM) "rolled" Not Ruled! :)
@  Asiadaug : (16 November 2014 - 02:07 AM) Thanks. I Have Seen The Fast Ltr 10-35 And Have Seen Cases Where The Va Has Apparently Agreed That Tinnitus Can Have Delayed Onset. I Did Not In Looking Over The Fast Ltr See Where They Had Ruled 10-028 Into That. And, I Am Not Sure In The Vas Issuance Of ‘policy’ Type Letters How They Might Roll In Previous Instructions Into Newer Ones. Maybe There Is Some Intranet Traceability Capability? I Was Just Curious As There ‘appeared’ To Be Conspicuous Absence Of That 10-028. I Am Assuming 10-028 Was Written In 2010. But It May Be I Should Not Assume Anything.
@  carlie : (15 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Asiadaug - You Might Be Looking For Fast Letter 10-35, Http://www.hadit.com/forums/topic/40962-Va-Fl-10-35/ Also Check Out This Link To Links For Delayed Onset Tinnitus - They All Refer Back To Fast Letter 10-35, Https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=Chrome-Instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=Utf-8#q=Tinnitus, Delayed Onset, Va Fast Letter
@  Tbird : (15 November 2014 - 07:50 AM) Asiadaug Searched All Over For Va Training Letter 10-028 But No Luck So Far.
@  Asiadaug : (15 November 2014 - 02:12 AM) Several Cases I've Run Across Mention Va Training Letter 10-028 With Apparent Discussion About Delayed Onset Of Tinnitus. I Have Been Unable To Locate That Trng Ltr. Any Suggestions?
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 05:56 PM) Stretch Thanks For Contributing To Our Fundraising Campairg
@  Tbird : (12 November 2014 - 04:01 AM) Atomicwidow Thank Your For Donating To Our Funding Campaign.
@  Tbird : (11 November 2014 - 07:00 AM) Veterans Day 2014 - Veterans Thank You For Your Service And Your Sacrifice.
@  Tbird : (10 November 2014 - 07:19 AM) Semper Fi Marines
@  USMC_HVEQ : (10 November 2014 - 01:11 AM) Happy Birthday Marines!
@  Tbird : (09 November 2014 - 05:41 PM) Veterans Affairs Secretary Interview On 60 Minutes Sunday, Nov. 9 At 7 P.m. Et - Cbs.com
@  Burt : (09 November 2014 - 01:33 PM) Http://www.hadit.com/forums/topic/59165-C-P-Results-Knee-Back-Hip-Hearing-And-Tinitus-Any-Thoughts/
@  Tbird : (08 November 2014 - 03:06 AM) Thank You Judith W. For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign.
@  cruiser07 : (07 November 2014 - 10:00 PM) Champva
@  Notorious Kelly : (07 November 2014 - 02:20 PM) Deals

Photo
- - - - -

Va Turned Down Claim


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
47 replies to this topic

#1 68mustang

 
68mustang

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 11:46 AM

Recently I put in a claim for hearing loss and vertigo. The VA denied the hearing loss, but has let the vertigo claim go forward. The reason the VA stated for denying the hearing loss claim was that last year I had put in a claim for hearing loss, which was denied and that I did not appeal the decision within the one year time limit. I did file a claim for tinnitus, and did not file a hearing loss claim. The tinnitus claim was approved and I received a 10% rating. The award letter states that my tinnitus claim was approved and nowhere in the letter does it state that a hearing loss claim was denied. The VA also states that in order for the hearing loss claim to continue, that I need to provide new evidence which has not been previously used.
The doctor's report that I sent in last year for the tinnitus claim stated the I had tinnitus and hearing loss due to acoustic trauma while in the military.


The doctor's report was used on the tinnitus claim, should that report be allowed to support my hearing loss claim since I had not previously file for hearing loss claim in last years original tinnitus claim?

Any input that you all might have would be appreciated. Thanks.

68mustang

#2 gp747

 
gp747

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 12:31 PM

is tinnitis and hearing loss separate , i filed claim for hearing loss and thought
they were same .i was diagnosed with tinnitis after a long time out of military.

#3 vaf

 
vaf

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 943 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 12:38 PM

No skunk, hearing loss and tinnitus are two separate issues. Maximum rating for tinnitus, whether in one ear or both, is 10%. Even if service connected, hearing loss needs to be significant to be rated above 0%, but again, they're both separate issues. You can suffer hearing loss without suffering from tinnitus.

#4 gp747

 
gp747

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 12:39 PM

No skunk, hearing loss and tinnitus are two separate issues. Maximum rating for tinnitus, whether in one ear or both, is 10%. Even if service connected, hearing loss needs to be significant to be rated above 0%, but again, they're both separate issues. You can suffer hearing loss without suffering from tinnitus.


well i did not know that , how do you aquire tinnitis?

#5 timetowinarace

 
timetowinarace

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 01:04 PM

68, it sounds like the VA used a little known(virtually unknown to most veterans) tactic to get over on you. For some reason it has been ruled that if the VA rules on one issue but not another, the other claim can be deemed denied without notification to the veteran. At least, I remember something to that effect. If you had not filed for hearing loss, the VA might have used the doctors report for tinnitus and hearing loss as an infered claim. I think you should request a copy of your c-file to see just what is in there.

You may have to re-open with new and material evidence. Or maybe someone here has come across this and knows how to help. If I remember correctly, a while back we have discussed this issue here at Hadit. I don't remember if anyone had a solution for veterans that got screwed by this trap but it was determined that if any claim was rated with no mention of other claims in the award letter, a NOD must by filed to keep the other claim/s alive. Of course, if you hadn't personally filed for hearing loss and was not notified if the claim was infered, there was no way for you to NOD.

I could be reading more into this than there is.

Hope someone can help.

Edited by timetowinarace, 04 January 2009 - 01:14 PM.


#6 vaf

 
vaf

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 943 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 01:04 PM

If you want a quick education on tinnitus, visit this website for the American Tinnitus Association:

www.ata.org

There's a tab labeled, "About Tinnitus" that should help.

#7 LarryJ

 
LarryJ

    Hadit.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3214 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 01:21 PM

Recently I put in a claim for hearing loss and vertigo. The VA denied the hearing loss, but has let the vertigo claim go forward. The reason the VA stated for denying the hearing loss claim was that last year I had put in a claim for hearing loss, which was denied and that I did not appeal the decision within the one year time limit. I did file a claim for tinnitus, and did not file a hearing loss claim. The tinnitus claim was approved and I received a 10% rating. The award letter states that my tinnitus claim was approved and nowhere in the letter does it state that a hearing loss claim was denied. The VA also states that in order for the hearing loss claim to continue, that I need to provide new evidence which has not been previously used.
The doctor's report that I sent in last year for the tinnitus claim stated the I had tinnitus and hearing loss due to acoustic trauma while in the military.


The doctor's report was used on the tinnitus claim, should that report be allowed to support my hearing loss claim since I had not previously file for hearing loss claim in last years original tinnitus claim?

Any input that you all might have would be appreciated. Thanks.

Did your denial for "hearing loss" state that this doctor's report was used to come to the conclusion of the denial?
Is this doctor's report mentioned anywhere in the SOC?
If not, then I'd file an NOD for "hearing loss" and use this doctor's report as the basis of "new and material" (meaning it is new evidence that the VA had not considered in the original claim and that it was, indeed, material evidence that, if it had been considered, would have materially effected the decision.

68mustang



#8 gp747

 
gp747

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 01:46 PM

states audio exam va hosp. hearing loss or tinnitus are not related to your
gonorrhea infection in vietnam
the most likely cause is your civilian occupation as a construction worker.
also says may reopen with new and material evidence.
when i filed for hearing loss the examiner at audiology asked mme if i had
ever had gonorrhea . i said yes ,in vietnam and i assumed that could cause
tinnitus , so i filed under that assumption ,wasn't very bright as there is no
evidence to connect the two ,i now find out.
now what i am investigating is medications since 1971 . all kinds psychiatric
meds , haldol prolixin, mellaril,stellazine,depakote,trazadone,and i dont know
what all else. i had severe reaction to haldol in va hosp and prolixin too.
i have been trying to find a precedent on making this kind of claim as far
as construction work i did not stay on jobs long enough to get hearing damage.

#9 simple fly

 
simple fly

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 01:51 PM

states audio exam va hosp. hearing loss or tinnitus are not related to your
gonorrhea infection in vietnam
the most likely cause is your civilian occupation as a construction worker.
also says may reopen with new and material evidence.
when i filed for hearing loss the examiner at audiology asked mme if i had
ever had gonorrhea . i said yes ,in vietnam and i assumed that could cause
tinnitus , so i filed under that assumption ,wasn't very bright as there is no
evidence to connect the two ,i now find out.
now what i am investigating is medications since 1971 . all kinds psychiatric
meds , haldol prolixin, mellaril,stellazine,depakote,trazadone,and i dont know
what all else. i had severe reaction to haldol in va hosp and prolixin too.
i have been trying to find a precedent on making this kind of claim as far
as construction work i did not stay on jobs long enough to get hearing damage.


depends on what you were doing with the ear i suppose.

#10 gp747

 
gp747

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 01:55 PM

depends on what you were doing with the ear i suppose.

well the ear was listening for sounds---- of better keep my mouth shut

#11 68mustang

 
68mustang

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 05:40 PM

Thanks for the info provided by all of you.

Larry J to answer your questions below. The denial that I received this past month mentions that I had previously file for hearing loss in 2007 . I never filed for hearing loss at that time. In 2007 I for filed tinnitus and not for hearing loss. The tinnitus claim was awarded and the award letter did not make any mention of a denial for hearing loss. If there had been documentation of a denial for hearing loss I would have quickly file an NOD. I believe the VA has made a mistake in saying that a non existent hearing loss claim from 2007 precludes me from using the doctor's report that was used for tinnitus in 2007. The doctor's report documents hearing loss due to exposure to acoustic trauma in military jobs and I believe that I should be able to use it since it has not been used to support a hearing loss. Thanks.


"Did your denial for "hearing loss" state that this doctor's report was used to come to the conclusion of the denial?
Is this doctor's report mentioned anywhere in the SOC?
If not, then I'd file an NOD for "hearing loss" and use this doctor's report as the basis of "new and material" (meaning it is new evidence that the VA had not considered in the original claim and that it was, indeed, material evidence that, if it had been considered, would have materially effected the decision".

#12 LarryJ

 
LarryJ

    Hadit.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3214 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 06:35 PM

I'd ask to see a copy of my C-file (get 'em to send you one).
Look through the C-file and make doubly sure that there is NOT a claim for hearing loss in your file (I know that you know that you DID NOT file for hearing loss.......BUT, when I received my copy of my C-file, I found a claim for DMII in there. I've never filed for diabetes, but, some old boy with a totally different name, HAD filed for diabetes, THREE years ago.........).
If there is no claim apparent for hearing loss, then now is the time to file a claim.
But, something is certainly strange of them turning down your claim for hearing loss, when there is, in fact, NO such claim.
Have you tried calling the 1-800 number and asking them to access your alledged claim?
Do it, just for laughs if nothing else.
If they can't find the so-called claim, then go for it. If they claim that they found the claim, get them to send you a copy of the claim.

#13 purple

 
purple

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 06:58 PM

Could it be that since your Dr said you suffered from hearing loss that is SCd that then the RO "assumed" (wrongly) that you were also filing a claim for that hearing loss....but didn't find either enough evidence or the right paperwork and denied it??

idk...just guessing here

#14 68mustang

 
68mustang

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 08:11 PM

Could it be that since your Dr said you suffered from hearing loss that is SCd that then the RO "assumed" (wrongly) that you were also filing a claim for that hearing loss....but didn't find either enough evidence or the right paperwork and denied it??

idk...just guessing here


Purple and Larry J thanks for your input. I don't know how an RO could give a denial when there is no claim for hearing loss. I agree that the RO could have made a mistake and wrongly assumed that a claim for hearing loss was made using the doctor's report. I'll also ask to see my c-file and call the 1-800 number for a copy of the alleged claim. Thanks.

#15 rentalguy1

 
rentalguy1

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2349 posts
 

Posted 04 January 2009 - 09:09 PM

I agree with timetowinarace about a inferred claim. The RO most likely noticed that the audiologist mentioned hearing loss due to noise exposure in the service and opened a claim on your behalf. I so not know about the rule that time mentioned, though. According to M21-1MR, every issue that was in the claim has to be addressed in the decision letter. If they inferred a claim for hearing loss, then that should have been in the decision letter. Go back and re-read that decision letter and be certain it is not in there. If it is not, then I agree with the others about checking your C-file for any information on this. Do it quickly, in case you have to file a NOD. If you do find something in the C-file, but not on the decision letter, you may have a CUE, but you'll have to find the applicable reg and the reason for the denial first.

#16 timetowinarace

 
timetowinarace

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 10:54 AM

During my claims process, I got tired of the years of VA bull and contacted my senator with a hand delivered letter. In that letter I listed all my issues/symptoms so the senator could understand the gravity of my medical situation. In turn, the senator's office forwarded that letter to the RO with his inquiry. The RO contacted me shortly after because they had to consider all of those symptoms as infered claims. My claim could not go forward with 13+ claims added to my file. These were not even medical reports. Just a list of symtoms. I had to write a statement that the list of symtoms was part of the initial claim and that I was dropping them as individual claims.

You do not have to file an official claim form for there to be a claim. That is why you need to view your c-file quickly.

I'll try to reference the decision about not notifying veterans for the deemed denied claims when one claim is rated.

#17 timetowinarace

 
timetowinarace

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 10:59 AM

rental, here it is.

http://www.vawatchdo...8-01-2006-1.htm

Larry,

A new case decided on July 27 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir.) contains a bombshell for veterans and their dependents.

The Fed. Cir. held that "[w]here the veteran files more than one claim with the RO at the same time, and the ROs decision acts (favorably or unfavorably) on one of the claims but fails to specifically address the other claim, the second claim is deemed denied, and the appeal period begins to run." (citing Andrews v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).

This means, in contravention of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5104 and 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3.103, that VA does not have to provide the claimant with notice of the claim or claims that have been "deemed denied" or the reasons for the denials, and the period in which to submit a notice of disagreement with the claims "deemed denied" begins to run from the date of the decision on any of the other simultaneously submitted claims.

Thus, an unrepresented or poorly represented claimant could have the time to appeal the "deemed denied" claims run out without even knowing that the claims had been denied!

Here is a link to the case: http://www.fedcir.go...ons/05-7155.pdf

Here are 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5104 and 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3.103:

5104. Decisions and notices of decisions

(a) In the case of a decision by the Secretary under section 511 of this title [38 USCS 511] affecting the provision of benefits to a claimant, the Secretary shall, on a timely basis, provide to the claimant (and to the claimant's representative) notice of such decision. The notice shall include an explanation of the procedure for obtaining review of the decision.
(:lol: In any case where the Secretary denies a benefit sought, the notice required by subsection (a) shall also include (1) a statement of the reasons for the decision, and (2) a summary of the evidence considered by the Secretary.

3.103 Procedural due process and appellate rights.

(a) Statement of policy. Every claimant has the right to written notice of the decision made on his or her claim, the right to a hearing, and the right of representation. Proceedings before VA are ex parte in nature, and it is the obligation of VA to assist a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to render a decision which grants every benefit that can be supported in law while protecting the interests of the Government. The provisions of this section apply to all claims for benefits and relief, and decisions thereon, within the purview of this part 3.
(B) The right to notice -- (1) General. Claimants and their representatives are entitled to notice of any decision made by VA affecting the payment of benefits or the granting of relief. Such notice shall clearly set forth the decision made, any applicable effective date, the reason(s) for the decision, the right to a hearing on any issue involved in the claim, the right of representation and the right, as well as the necessary procedures and time limits, to initiate an appeal of the decision.

#18 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22319 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 11:16 AM

Mustang68

Did you received a VCAA letter for the claim for hearing loss or tinnitus? If you don't get a VCAA letter on a claim then the VA has violated their own regs. If it was an inferred claim you should have still got a VCAA letter.

#19 rentalguy1

 
rentalguy1

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2349 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 11:40 AM

That's absolutely crazy! :lol:

#20 LarryJ

 
LarryJ

    Hadit.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3214 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 12:29 PM

The sole and only reason that the judicial system exists in this country is to interpret laws, NOT TO MAKE THE LAWS, but only to interpret the intentions of the legislature (supposedly the intentions of THE PEOPLE, but, in most instances, big business and special interests groups, but, nonetheless....).

Time, this decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is in open contravention of the Constitution of the United States of America and would NOT stand scrutiny of the Supreme Court, but, unfortunately, it'll be one or more of US veterans that will have to spend the remainder of his/her life in limbo while their single attorney, the only one that they could get to take their case, fights this decision in the Supreme Court of the United States, taking, on average these days, 6 years from filing to hearing date, IF and ONLY IF, the Supreme Court deems it in THEIR INTEREST to hear the case.

Being that the Court of Appeals has decided in the VA's favor, AGAIN, the GOOD recommendation that we should be giving out on this site when it comes to "should I claim more than ONE issue when I file?" is ABSOLUTELY NO!

and, again, as Pete and John and Rentaldude, et al, have repeatedly pointed out:

GET A COPY OF YOUR C-FILE, NOW, AND READ IT, AND READ IT, AND READ IT!
AND, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, THEN ASK THEM.
AND, BE AWARE OF DATES, OR, IF NOT, YOU ARE, WELL, YOU ARE SCREWED, BY THE VERY INSTITUTION THAT WAS CREATED TO MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T GET SCREWED! :lol:

#21 timetowinarace

 
timetowinarace

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 01:42 PM

The sole and only reason that the judicial system exists in this country is to interpret laws, NOT TO MAKE THE LAWS, but only to interpret the intentions of the legislature (supposedly the intentions of THE PEOPLE, but, in most instances, big business and special interests groups, but, nonetheless....).

Time, this decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is in open contravention of the Constitution of the United States of America and would NOT stand scrutiny of the Supreme Court, but, unfortunately, it'll be one or more of US veterans that will have to spend the remainder of his/her life in limbo while their single attorney, the only one that they could get to take their case, fights this decision in the Supreme Court of the United States, taking, on average these days, 6 years from filing to hearing date, IF and ONLY IF, the Supreme Court deems it in THEIR INTEREST to hear the case.

Being that the Court of Appeals has decided in the VA's favor, AGAIN, the GOOD recommendation that we should be giving out on this site when it comes to "should I claim more than ONE issue when I file?" is ABSOLUTELY NO!

and, again, as Pete and John and Rentaldude, et al, have repeatedly pointed out:

GET A COPY OF YOUR C-FILE, NOW, AND READ IT, AND READ IT, AND READ IT!
AND, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, THEN ASK THEM.
AND, BE AWARE OF DATES, OR, IF NOT, YOU ARE, WELL, YOU ARE SCREWED, BY THE VERY INSTITUTION THAT WAS CREATED TO MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T GET SCREWED! :lol:


Only Congress can change this now because there was not an appeal to the supreme court.

The story from VA Watchdog here: http://www.vawatchdo.../nf122406-4.htm

However, I agree with john999 that 68mustang should have gotten a VCAA letter if there was an infered claim so he could supply evidence in support of the claim. This would be his avenue to pursue. I don't see how the VA could infer and deny a claim without the veteran knowing there ever was a claim. That said, we know the VA is not above such tactics.

There is the chance that the RO is mistaken and there never was a claim, infered or otherwise, for hearing loss. It seems a good chance as the RO is not known for following the law and opening infered claims when they should. They did not open a claim for TBI in my case after I was diagnosed with inservice TBI by a C&P Doc. Instead they denied my MDD claim because the MDD was "caused by a head injury in service".

#22 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22319 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 01:48 PM

I say again that when you file multiple claims you need to get a VCAA letter that addresses all the claims. If you don't get that letter then you can almost rest assured that the claims that are not referenced in the VCAA letter are going nowhere, and may just die.

#23 simple fly

 
simple fly

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 02:11 PM

i turned in a multi claim [14] at once because my poa said to do it as well as hadit members.i received a vcaa letter addressing all.but i had c and p exams for only 3. any input on this? i'm told my claims are at the rater...4 months now.

#24 gp747

 
gp747

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 02:31 PM

i have multiple claims at the ro does this mean , like if i file for an increase it is
denied and i file for arthritis it is automatically denied? i really do not under stand
this.
oh after reading it says if acts on one claim and doesnt act on others they are deemed denied,but dont they have to notify you?

Edited by skunk, 05 January 2009 - 02:40 PM.


#25 timetowinarace

 
timetowinarace

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 02:33 PM

i turned in a multi claim [14] at once because my poa said to do it as well as hadit members.i received a vcaa letter addressing all.but i had c and p exams for only 3. any input on this? i'm told my claims are at the rater...4 months now.


I think multiple claims are fine for those that know these VA dirty secrets. You just need to be on top of it when you get a decision, favorable or unfavorable, on any of them so that the rest do not get swept under the rug. If any claim is not mentioned in an award or denial letter, send in a quick NOD for them.

#26 simple fly

 
simple fly

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 296 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 02:37 PM

I think multiple claims are fine for those that know these VA dirty secrets. You just need to be on top of it when you get a decision, favorable or unfavorable, on any of them so that the rest do not get swept under the rug. If any claim is not mentioned in an award or denial letter, send in a quick NOD for them.

thanks..i'll be on top with an appeal or nod the second i get word.

Edited by simple fly, 05 January 2009 - 02:38 PM.


#27 gp747

 
gp747

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 03:10 PM

ok if you send in nod while claim is being processed saying if denied i

want to file nod if denied would thet hold up?

[b]you know a pre-nod so to speak!

Edited by skunk, 05 January 2009 - 03:18 PM.


#28 LarryJ

 
LarryJ

    Hadit.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3214 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 03:20 PM

No, Skunk, you'd just confuse the already confused.

#29 gp747

 
gp747

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 03:23 PM

No, Skunk, you'd just confuse the already confused.


i am sending my pre-nod in saying any deemed denied claims i have filed for
are nodded as of now . i am not going to let the bas----s
screw me on a technicality

Edited by skunk, 05 January 2009 - 03:53 PM.


#30 rentalguy1

 
rentalguy1

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2349 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 03:57 PM

i am sending my pre-nod in saying any deemed denied claims i have filed for
are nodded as of now . i am not going to let the bas----s
screw me on a technicality



NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

had to get your attention. This is a really bad idea. First, it will stop any progress on your claim because they will have to track your c-file down to add your "statement in support of claim" to it (and that is exactly what it will be considered). Second, like Larry said, it will only confuse them (which is why it will be viewed as a statement in support of claim). Lastly, it will serve no purpose. You cannot disagree with a decision that has yet to be made. You have to be very, very specific with a NOD, unless you just want another cut and paste denial letter.

#31 gp747

 
gp747

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 797 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 04:05 PM

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

had to get your attention. This is a really bad idea. First, it will stop any progress on your claim because they will have to track your c-file down to add your "statement in support of claim" to it (and that is exactly what it will be considered). Second, like Larry said, it will only confuse them (which is why it will be viewed as a statement in support of claim). Lastly, it will serve no purpose. You cannot disagree with a decision that has yet to be made. You have to be very, very specific with a NOD, unless you just want another cut and paste denial letter.

you caught me just in time i will take your advice,but i am pissed with that court
decision.

Edited by skunk, 05 January 2009 - 04:13 PM.


#32 rentalguy1

 
rentalguy1

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2349 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 04:09 PM

you caught me just in time i will take your advice,but i am pissed with that cavc
decision.


It's not a CAVC opinion, it's a Federal Court of Appeals decision; one step higher than CAVC. Be sure to remember this the next time you vote for US Representatives, US Senators and the President. They are the ones who appoint these morons who think it is ok to legislate from the bench.

#33 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22319 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 04:46 PM

How do we know this decision will become common practice thoughout the VA? It is going to create chaos. If they do the denial thing it will make writing NOD's difficult because you won't know why your claims were denied. If you have five claims and one is denied you have to assume the others were denied, but you have no idea why? How can you write a decent NOD. If you do write a generic NOD will you get back a SOC that is specific to all the denied claims? I get a feeling the denied claims will be lost in space. I know why they did this move because the VA pushed them to do it to cut down on the paperwork to write denials for veterans filing large numbers of claims. I think this is something that younger vets are doing now since they are better prepared than us old guys. I think in reality it is unworkable, and does not allow due process.

#34 LarryJ

 
LarryJ

    Hadit.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3214 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 05:09 PM

All I can say is "they sure screwed up". Of course, this will just make the utterly ridiculous seem simply sublime. And provide more income for lawyers..............wait, you don't think that those lawyers who become judges...................naw, what a silly assumption on my part.

#35 purple

 
purple

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1416 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 05:46 PM

so basically from now on vets will have to carefully screen their claims to make sure that only one medical condition is mentioned per claim to make sure this doesn't happen???? so that there are no assumptions made by the ROs???

#36 68mustang

 
68mustang

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 05:54 PM

How do we know this decision will become common practice thoughout the VA? It is going to create chaos. If they do the denial thing it will make writing NOD's difficult because you won't know why your claims were denied. If you have five claims and one is denied you have to assume the others were denied, but you have no idea why? How can you write a decent NOD. If you do write a generic NOD will you get back a SOC that is specific to all the denied claims? I get a feeling the denied claims will be lost in space. I know why they did this move because the VA pushed them to do it to cut down on the paperwork to write denials for veterans filing large numbers of claims. I think this is something that younger vets are doing now since they are better prepared than us old guys. I think in reality it is unworkable, and does not allow due process.


Thanks to all of you for your responses. I went to the DAV this morning for help with denied claim for hearing loss. Last night through IRIS I sent a request for my c-file and a copy of the 2007 "phantom" denial letter for hearing loss. I don't believe that the denial letter ever existed. DAV rep. told me that when I receive the documents to go back and we'll see what we need to do. I feel that it we be an uphill battle, but I am up for it. I am not going to let the VA get away with an inferred hearing loss claim if that is what happened. Plus I will be sending a letter to my Congressman about the VA'S "Deemed Denied" ruling from 2006. I read the the info on the ruling and all I saw was that if multiple claims were made and if one was denied all others would be deemed denied. In my case I only filed for tinnitus and not for hearing loss. The tinnitus claim was approved and there is no paperwork denying a hearing loss calim. Again thanks.

68mustang

#37 LarryJ

 
LarryJ

    Hadit.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3214 posts
 

Posted 05 January 2009 - 07:25 PM

so basically from now on vets will have to carefully screen their claims to make sure that only one medical condition is mentioned per claim to make sure this doesn't happen???? so that there are no assumptions made by the ROs???



Yuppers, that's the way it looks to me.

Just more darn paper to shredd. :lol:

#38 vaf

 
vaf

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 943 posts
 

Posted 06 January 2009 - 10:00 AM

Mustang, I don't know for sure about your VARO, but the one in Louisiana would not accept a request for a C-file through IRIS. They insisted on written notification, not electronic. You may want to call and check, but I'd do it via certified mail if I were you. The reason for that is that when the file never arrived after almost a year, I had to send copies of the green card that verified the VARO received the request, and the date they received it, to the Office of the General Counsel. I also included printouts of follow-up IRIS inquiries over eleven months in which the VA confirmed they had the request and would get around to sending it when they're not too busy, etc.

Even then, when I reviewed the file when it finally got here, the OGC wrote to the VARO that the veteran "allegedly" requested the file in January 2007. There was no "allegedly" about it, the black and white evidence was staring them in the face.

#39 68mustang

 
68mustang

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 409 posts
 

Posted 06 January 2009 - 10:48 AM

Mustang, I don't know for sure about your VARO, but the one in Louisiana would not accept a request for a C-file through IRIS. They insisted on written notification, not electronic. You may want to call and check, but I'd do it via certified mail if I were you. The reason for that is that when the file never arrived after almost a year, I had to send copies of the green card that verified the VARO received the request, and the date they received it, to the Office of the General Counsel. I also included printouts of follow-up IRIS inquiries over eleven months in which the VA confirmed they had the request and would get around to sending it when they're not too busy, etc.

Even then, when I reviewed the file when it finally got here, the OGC wrote to the VARO that the veteran "allegedly" requested the file in January 2007. There was no "allegedly" about it, the black and white evidence was staring them in the face.


Thanks vaf. You are right I should request it by certified mail. I did know that it might have to be requested by mail. Lets see what the response is through IRIS. I am still within the time limits to file an NOD if I have to.

68mustang

#40 timetowinarace

 
timetowinarace

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 743 posts
 

Posted 06 January 2009 - 11:47 AM

It's not a CAVC opinion, it's a Federal Court of Appeals decision; one step higher than CAVC. Be sure to remember this the next time you vote for US Representatives, US Senators and the President. They are the ones who appoint these morons who think it is ok to legislate from the bench.


Yep, contact Reps and Senators. But the focus should be on getting them to re-write the law and include terminlogy to it that the veteran must be notified of ALL denials. The new law should be retro-active to include past claims.

No denial letter should = no denial.