HadItcom

The Law on Presumption of Soundness and how it affects your VA disability claim for aggravation | hadit.com

[ad_1] ; Skip to content Posted…

2 years ago

Veterans Deserve Better: How State Lawmakers Have Taken Action To Help Them | hadit.com

[ad_1] 7% of the US Population has put on the uniform, sacrificed years of their life, and, if needed, agreed…

2 years ago

Single Judge Application; hearing loss effective date; Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 219 (2015); in Swain v. McDonald the Court explained that 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 does not govern the effective date for hearing loss ratings. See 27 Vet.App. at 224-25. The Court held that the effective date for hearing loss may be earlier than the date of an audiometric test that satisfies the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, and that, “unless otherwise specifically noted in the statute or regulation, [38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3)] and [38 C.F.R.] § 3.400 govern the effective date for disability benefits claims.” Id. at 225. The Board noted some of Mr. Garcia’s statements about his worsening hearing loss before 2019, but the Board denied entitlement to a compensable rating before June 11, 2019, seemingly because the record did not contain any other “audiometric testing results during this portion of the appeal period which comply with 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 for rating purposes.” R. at 11.; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; hearing loss effective date; Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 219 (2015); in Swain v. McDonald…

3 years ago

Angent Orange exposer » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] For Dependent Spouses, Children and Parents of deceased Veterans VA service representatives can answer questions about benefits eligibility and…

3 years ago

What happens in an ED Comp & pen exam » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] For Dependent Spouses, Children and Parents of deceased Veterans VA service representatives can answer questions about benefits eligibility and…

3 years ago

“[P]rivate medical evidence since the initial exam that indicates the veteran’s medical history [] include[s] cold injury residuals [is] based upon his verbal history—not the evidence of record.” R. at 3583. There is no doubt that the RO’s distinction between the “evidence of record” and the veteran’s own statements was completely misleading at best. See 38 U.S.C.§ 5107(b) (requiring the Secretary to “consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case”); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting that VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim to disability or death benefits); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that””lay evidence is one type of evidence that must be considered, if submitted, when a veteran’s claim seeks disability benefits” and holding that, in certain situations, “competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself” to establish entitlement to such benefits). The language used in the request indicates that the veteran’s own statements are not “evidence of record” and would require at least corroboration in service medical records to be credible and probative. That is contrary to Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1335 (finding improper the Board’s determination that ‘lay statements lacked credibility merely because they were not corroborated by contemporaneous [SMRs]”).; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); The RO’s request distinguished between…

3 years ago

TBI review and Polytrauma eval » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] For Dependent Spouses, Children and Parents of deceased Veterans VA service representatives can answer questions about benefits eligibility and…

3 years ago

the claimant’s description of the claim; the symptoms the claimant describes; and the information the claimant submits or that the Secretary obtains in support of the claim.” Clemons, 23 Vet.App. at 5. “[T]he claimant’s intent in filing a claim is paramount to construing its breadth.” Id. To effectuate that intent, “VA shall afford lenity to a veteran’s filings that fail to enumerate precisely the disabilities included within the bounds of a claim,” which “is best accomplished by looking to the veteran’s reasonable expectations in filing the claim and the evidence developed in processing that claim.” Murphy, 983 F.3d at 1318. “[T]he fact that the [claimant] may be wrong about the nature of his [or her] condition does not relieve the Secretary of his duty to properly adjudicate the claim.” Clemons, 23 Vet.App. at 6.; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] Panel Application; Clemons; Murphy v. Wilkie Like the veteran in Clemons, Mr. Grimes “did not file a claim…

3 years ago

test post » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] For Dependent Spouses, Children and Parents of deceased Veterans VA service representatives can answer questions about benefits eligibility and…

3 years ago

Epilepsy Diagnosis » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] For Dependent Spouses, Children and Parents of deceased Veterans VA service representatives can answer questions about benefits eligibility and…

3 years ago
Show more Posts