Tag: claim

Secretary concession SMC part of every claim for increase; The Secretary further concedes that because SMC is an issue within an increased rating claim, the Board should have considered whether the appellant filed a claim for an increased disability rating for his left eye condition earlier than January 2014 or, at a minimum, considered 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2), which allows under certain circumstances an effective date up to 1 year prior to the date of a claim for increase. Secretary’s Br. at 9.; the Secretary further concedes that, to the extent that SMC may be considered part of a claim for increased compensation, see Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 118, 121 (1991) (concluding that the RO “should have inferred from the veteran’s request for an increase in benefits . . . a request for [SMC] whether or not it was placed in issue by the veteran”), the Board should have addressed whether the appellant sought SMC through an increased rating claim for his left eye disability prior to January 2014 or whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) applied. See Secretary’s Br. at 8-10. The Court will accept the Secretary’s concession, ;
Single Judge Application; solvent; Veterans Benefits Administration documents undermine the Secretary’s current claim of ignorance as to what constitutes a solvent. See, e.g., VA ADJUDICATIONS PROCEDURES MANUAL (M21-1MR), pt. IV, subpt. 2, ch. 1, § E(19)(g) (discussing solvent exposure in Gulf War veterans); VA Training Letter 10-01 (Feb. 4, 2010) (same); VA CLINICIANS’ GUIDE § 20.1 (same); VA Training Letter 07-04 (July 5, 2007) (solvent exposure in Navy divers); VA Training Letter 10-03 (Apr. 26, 2010) (solvent exposure from burn pits in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Djibouti and at the Naval Air Facility in Atsugi, Japan); VA Training Letter 11-03 (Nov. 21, 2011) (solvent exposure for veterans stationed at Camp Lejeune).;
Page 1 of 5 1 2 5