Jump to content


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.


Ihd Claim Appeal

This topic has been archived.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

#1 hawkfire27


    E-5 Petty Officer 2nd Class

  • Chief Petty Officers
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 244 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 02:11 AM

So my husband ended up changing VSO's because the PVA guy he had was screwing up his claims that we had decided to pursue without his help, (because he never did anything)

Went with the DAV instead for the appeal of his Nehmer IHD claim.

IHD claim -

* No problem with the date
* rated 30% 1988 to 1991
*rated 100% 1991 to 1992 (By pass surgery)
*rated 30% 1992 to 2001
*rated 60% 2001 to present

Problem with rating-
* reason given for 30% assigned rating: Veteran has not demonstrated in evidence that a rating higher than 30% is warranted. A rating higher than 30% requires proof that the veteran had recurrent aginal attacks or a reduced ability to work, such as the inability to do anything other than sendentary work.

* So my husband recieved SSD when he had his heart attack and several angio and stents placed in 1988.
* VA VOC REHAB attempted to retrain him because he was unable to return to the same type of work that he was doing. He failed the retraining which was part of the SSD claim in 1988.

VA never considered the Voc Rehab records or the social security records.

DAV guy just wrote a generic "Veteran feels that he is entitled to a rating of at least 60% due to being granted Social Security Disability in 1988" letter/NOD.

It has now gone into the appeals process according to ebenefits. I understand that a DRO review is part of the appeals process but will this really help?

Should we have submitted a CUE (failing to take the voc rehab records into account/ duty to assist) or new and material evidence instead?

The DAV rep could have done much better than the NOD he did write. He did not indicate the applicable rules about using the old IHD regs if they are more favorable (which they are). Nor did he state anything about the Voc Rehab records that prove he was unable to do anything but sedetary work (old IHD regs for 100%).

What should we do? Any advice?

#2 stillhere


    E-8 Senior Chief Petty Officer

  • Senior Chief Petty Officer
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1367 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 05:44 AM

You can always submit evidence to support your claim. I think I would if your VSO did not put forth a good effort. The VA will acknowledge everything in it's decision that they used to make their decision.

#3 Berta


    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29048 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:22 AM

VA never considered the Voc Rehab records or the social security records."

That might be the key to this claim for higher rating.

If VA knew he was getting SSA and he signed an authorization form for VA to get them, there might have been an evidentiary CUE committed here,if thy were never obtained by the VA.

Are they listed as Evidence? If not they have to be obtained by the VA.

Or did VA ever get them and then opine on them in any past decision?

"DAV guy just wrote a generic "Veteran feels that he is entitled to a rating of at least 60% due to being granted Social Security Disability in 1988" letter/NOD."

A DAV NSO gave me such lousy advise over my husband's SSA award that I revoked the POA, found out VA had never even obtained them, and from that day on, I did my own claims work.

My husband was Voc Rehab too and his Voc Rehab records were considered by SSA as well as VA ,due to his accommodation requests that Corning College had granted.

Something seems wrong here. I cant tell i they committed a CUE but the most important thing to do is to make sure the VA tried to obtain his SSA records (I used my husband's VA authorization form to prove he had authorized them to get the records)
if they have never been listed as evidence, they must be acquired by the VA or by you---and sent in
and if they were listed as evidnce , what did VA say as to their SSA findings regarding his IHD rating?

#4 Chuck75


    HadIt.com Elder

  • HadIt.com Elder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1499 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 10:01 AM

This is a lulu!
Anyway, a SSA determination of SSDI due solely to IHD is a telling factor, and should be a key part of the evidence in favor of a higher rating with a 1988 EDD, assuming all the other things the VA quibbles about are satisfied. The "veteran feels" statement can be used against the veteran by an RO, although such use might be construed as not meeting the "maximum benefit" clauses in the laws.

#5 Berta


    HadIt.com Elder/SVR Radio Panelist

  • SVR
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29048 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 02:21 PM

Yes Chuck, this does seem odd but I need to clarify my post with the "Watergate" question:

What did they know and when did they know it? 'They' meaning the VA

If the VA knew he was on SSDI ,because he documented to them that he was,in his past claim, then the VA should have sent him a 21-4142 form for any private medical and/or SSDI records,which he needed to sign and then copy and mail back to the VA.

In 1988 those forms were not available on line and only the VA or maybe some vet reps had them.

If the VA knew he was on SSDI and had his signed 21- 4142 form but didnt, (as in my personal situation below) even attempt to get those records ,this might well be a CUE. It could be a CUE based oh 38 CFR 4.3 and 4.6.

Cue also involves the “watergate' question but breaking the DTA regs does not warrant a valid CUE claim. The regs I mentioned might do it.

"DAV guy just wrote a generic "Veteran feels that he is entitled to a rating of at least 60% due to being granted Social Security Disability in 1988" letter/NOD." What a wimp.

If the SSDI award was Solely for IHD, the rep should have whipped out a TDIU form ,had your husband fill it out and sign it, give him a copy and and refer to it in the NOD as enclosed, and ask that it be promptly considered for a proper award of TDIU and then figure out how to prepare a CUE on the older decision.

Still this depends on what he received the SSDI for.

And why the DAV rep came up with a request for 'at least 60%'