Jump to content



Search



Toggle shoutbox Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

@  arng11 : (26 November 2014 - 11:30 AM) Everyone Enjoy The Holidays And Be Safe.
@  eagle1012004 : (26 November 2014 - 10:10 AM) Have A Happy Thanksgiving All!!!
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:54 PM) Tbird Accepted To 2015 Conference: V-Wise: Another Entrepreneurship Project Of The Whitman School Of Management Http://ow.ly/ej9Qg
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 04:13 PM) Arng11 Thank You For Your Contribution To Our Funding Campaign.
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 02:57 PM) Thank You Ms T For Starting This Web Site For All Veterans, You Helpd Me And My Family And I'll Be Forever Gratful To You & Hadit.com
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:19 AM) Thank You All For Helping With The Funding The Site. It Is Really Helping!
@  Tbird : (22 November 2014 - 08:18 AM) Britton Pm Me And I. Can Check This Out For You
@  britton : (22 November 2014 - 06:44 AM) What Does ''you Missed Your Quota For Postives Votes Today'' Mean??
@  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.

Photo

100% + 60%


This topic has been archived.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

#1 SheilaLundlee

 
SheilaLundlee

    E-3 Seaman

  • Seaman
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
 

Posted 11 March 2011 - 02:47 AM

I know everyone says SMC is confusing and I am joining that crowd. Here's my question:

1. I am IU for a single disability; in addition, I am

2. Cystocele/Rectocele - 50%
Depression - 50%

Do my two other disabilities qualify me for 100% + 60% = SMC (s)?

I've seen the question elsewhere but couldn't determine the answer....

Thanks,

Sheila

#2 Philip Rogers

 
Philip Rogers

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3975 posts
 

Posted 11 March 2011 - 05:40 AM

Yes, you should be and I believe they committed a CUE by not awarding it when they made the decision(s) that gave you those current ratings. You should be owed retro.

pr



I know everyone says SMC is confusing and I am joining that crowd. Here's my question:

1. I am IU for a single disability; in addition, I am

2. Cystocele/Rectocele - 50%
Depression - 50%

Do my two other disabilities qualify me for 100% + 60% = SMC (s)?

I've seen the question elsewhere but couldn't determine the answer....

Thanks,

Sheila



#3 SheilaLundlee

 
SheilaLundlee

    E-3 Seaman

  • Seaman
  • PipPipPip
  • 32 posts
 

Posted 11 March 2011 - 09:42 AM

Thank you!

Yes, you should be and I believe they committed a CUE by not awarding it when they made the decision(s) that gave you those current ratings. You should be owed retro.

pr






#4 broncovet

 
broncovet

    E-9 Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Master Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3725 posts
 

Posted 11 March 2011 - 05:34 PM

I have seen similar issues argued on another board. The retired rater said it would depend on what issues
you were "IU" for. To qualify for Bradley vs Peak, your conditions have to be "independent" of each other. In other words were you "IU" for depression, IU for Cystocele, or both.

However, I have found that appeals takes an entirely different view than rating speciailists. Rating specialists goal is to "get that claim out" as fast as possible, so denials work well that way.

My guess is that you may eventually win, but it will take at least one level of appeals.

#5 Philip Rogers

 
Philip Rogers

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3975 posts
 

Posted 11 March 2011 - 06:52 PM

broncovet - she stated "I am IU for a single disability; in addition, I am"

2. Cystocele/Rectocele - 50%
Depression - 50%

Which I took to mean independently of her IU disability.

pr



I have seen similar issues argued on another board. The retired rater said it would depend on what issues
you were "IU" for. To qualify for Bradley vs Peak, your conditions have to be "independent" of each other. In other words were you "IU" for depression, IU for Cystocele, or both.

However, I have found that appeals takes an entirely different view than rating speciailists. Rating specialists goal is to "get that claim out" as fast as possible, so denials work well that way.

My guess is that you may eventually win, but it will take at least one level of appeals.



#6 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22329 posts
 

Posted 12 March 2011 - 08:37 AM

I think she should be able to cue this and get retro if the two 50% ratings are independent of the IU. The VA is just remaining silent on the "S" question and IU because they figure they can save money. They don't want to go back and review thousands of IU claims to see if they should get "S". That would go for 100% schedular as well. I would file yeaterday and just ask for "S" based on Bradly v Peake.

#7 WAC-Vet75

 
WAC-Vet75

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
 

Posted 12 March 2011 - 11:29 AM

SheilaLundlee, look at our other threads concerning 100% plus 60% added....... we have plenty of ammunition for your CUE. Philip Rogers already had his case before the BVA, and now will hopefully be following through with the CAVC. Until someone gets this before the CAVC, the VA is going to continue to ignore the letter of the law/regulation, just like they have with so many other cases... Bradley v Peake is just one example where the VA, BVA, arbitrarily interpreted the law (though there was NO law/regulation to that effect) to THEIR advantage. File a NOD citing the CUE.

#8 steve&pat

 
steve&pat

    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

  • Second Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 75 posts
 

Posted 12 March 2011 - 05:32 PM

GO TO THIS VAOIG report from 1/24/2011 click on the hot bar and click onthe
(Full report PDF) at top and go to page 7 OIG has already noticed this and the VA is
supposed to be INSTRUCTED ON THIS ERROR THEY ARE MAKING.USE this like a FAST LETTER.

http://www.va.gov/oi...ary.asp?id=3738

STEVE & PAT

#9 WAC-Vet75

 
WAC-Vet75

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
 

Posted 12 March 2011 - 07:54 PM

GO TO THIS VAOIG report from 1/24/2011 click on the hot bar and click onthe
(Full report PDF) at top and go to page 7 OIG has already noticed this and the VA is
supposed to be INSTRUCTED ON THIS ERROR THEY ARE MAKING.USE this like a FAST LETTER.

http://www.va.gov/oi...ary.asp?id=3738

STEVE & PAT

"The veteran had additional disabilities totaling 60 percent disabling." I would love to see that case. Interesting that they didn't state, "the veteran had additional disabilities with a combined evaluation rating totaling 60 percent disabling", or "the veteran had additional disabilities totaling 60 percent disabling, in accordance with the combined rating table 38 USC 4.25", as the word "totaling" means sum up, as adding.

"In October 2006, an RVSR increased a veteran's evaluation to 100 percent. The veteran had additional disabilities totaling 60 percent disabling. However, the RVSR did not grant statutory housebound benefits (special monthly compensation) in accordance with established regulations. Regulations entitle veterans with a 100 percent disability and additional disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher to receive special monthly compensation. Because VARO staff did not grant the special monthly compensation, the veteran was underpaid $20,800. The VSC manager agreed stating the prior evaluation was clearly erroneous and took action to grant the benefits."

This was just from the sampling the OIG took, not every 100% case with additional disabilities!

BTW, FRIGGIN AWESOME find Steve&Pat!!!!!!

Edited by WAC-Vet75, 12 March 2011 - 07:55 PM.


#10 rakkwarrior

 
rakkwarrior

    E-4 Petty Officer 3rd Class

  • Second Class Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 74 posts
 

Posted 12 March 2011 - 10:07 PM

See my CUE template on failure to assign SMC "S" awards.

#11 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22329 posts
 

Posted 13 March 2011 - 09:25 AM

I got "S" based on TDIU plus 60%. It was a CUE. I got 8500 bucks in retro. It only took about 5 weeks to get it. I just sent in Statement in Support of Claim asking for "S" based on Bradley V Peake. I had one single rating of 60% plus 5 10% ratings above and beyond the IU.

#12 WAC-Vet75

 
WAC-Vet75

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • First Class Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
 

Posted 13 March 2011 - 11:10 AM

I got "S" based on TDIU plus 60%. It was a CUE. I got 8500 bucks in retro. It only took about 5 weeks to get it. I just sent in Statement in Support of Claim asking for "S" based on Bradley V Peake. I had one single rating of 60% plus 5 10% ratings above and beyond the IU.

Hopefully, we can get them to CUE, for using the combined rating schedule, for ratings over 100%, so our comrades will get their rightful entitlement!

#13 iraqx2

 
iraqx2

    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
 

Posted 26 July 2011 - 03:59 PM

I thought for SMC it was 100% for one disability and at least 60% for another. I man be wrong. I am just basing it on my own situation.

Good luck.

#14 john999

 
john999

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22329 posts
 

Posted 26 July 2011 - 04:14 PM

It is total disability plus 60%, so someone with 70% TDIU and an extra 60% can get "S". Bradley vs Peake.

#15 Teac

 
Teac

    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1158 posts
 

Posted 09 September 2011 - 07:08 PM

I know everyone says SMC is confusing and I am joining that crowd. Here's my question:

1. I am IU for a single disability; in addition, I am

2. Cystocele/Rectocele - 50%
Depression - 50%

Do my two other disabilities qualify me for 100% + 60% = SMC (s)?

I've seen the question elsewhere but couldn't determine the answer....

Thanks,

Sheila



Under Bradley V peake you may be entitled to SMC S Housebound. But Not so fast, depending on how your award for IU was worded, the va may have based the IU on your combined disabilities, even though it may only be one disability
that actually prohibits you from working. So if you get a chance read the award letter to be sure what the IU award was actually based on. If your other disabilities were awarded after IU.. then it won't be a question, but as you have presented it here
it could go either way.....,.

#16 hedgey

 
hedgey

    E-7 Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts
 

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:58 AM

Aruuuh?

What's this SMC stuff?

I maybe should start a new thread. The link to the IG report leads to a "This report not available at this time".

#17 Philip Rogers

 
Philip Rogers

    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3975 posts
 

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:49 PM

Hedgey - have you been playin' ostrich(sp), by keeping your head in the sand? We've been discussing this for a coupla yrs. Just search SMC "s" award & Bradley v Peake.

pr