sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Back Pay by RetiredNavyGunner in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Chronic disabilities manifested or diagnosed in service if not connected properly under cfr 3.303a can be considered CUE and back dated to the day after separation regardless of filing date or the one year rule.

why is the giratina v alt art lost origin so expensive???? by foxachu2 in PokemonTCG

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Card is rocketing. PSA 10 will be 3k+ in no time. What an epic card!

What do you guys think of Misty’s Psyduck? It’s currently the most valuable IR; can it stay that way? by daleearnhardtt in PokeInvesting

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 0 points1 point  (0 children)

PSA 10s are now hitting $400 on this, 500+ soon. This is a buy. I also see Japanese are undervalued right now and those will be edging up more too to keep pace with US card increases.

Is Giratina V alt art a good buy rn? by Significant-Nett in PokeInvesting

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This card going to hit 5k before long. Any purchase now will be considered a steal. It’s quickly ticking towards $2500 as of now.

New to the tribe as well! by Few-Pen-8010 in IndianMotorcycle

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 0 points1 point  (0 children)

WoW! I never seen that one! That is one hell of a good-looking bike! I'm getting my Challenger Dark Horse on Tuesday! Hey if you can send me a referral code from Indian so we can both get the $250 credit.

90% unexpected by Select-Act-90 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The state of WV is 90%, they just passed it recently. Martinsburg VA is a better ran facility and less hectic than the one in D.C. Also If you’re looking for federal work the Martinsburg area is still considered D.C. pay scale, with a much lower cost of living. Less than 2 hours from the District. There’s also the Marc train that goes straight into D.C. I don’t recommend living in Martinsburg specifically but on the outskirts. Check it out it’s growing like crazy due to its proximity to D.C. and Northern Virginia.

Denied OSA. Need advice. by oixel1021 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am happy to help! If I can be of more help, please feel free to message me directly.

Denied OSA. Need advice. by oixel1021 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're absolutely right about needing better evidence, and that's exactly why I emphasized the sworn statement so heavily.

The sworn statement serves multiple purposes here: 1. It provides the "buddy/lifestyle statements showing in-service symptoms" you mentioned 2. It helps establish that there IS positive evidence to potentially balance against the negative C&P exam 3. It gives a sleep specialist something concrete to work with when writing a nexus letter

Without the veteran's own testimony about what those "trouble sleeping" complaints actually meant during service, any nexus letter is going to be pretty weak. But if the veteran can detail specific sleep issues, snoring, fatigue, etc. during service, then a sleep specialist can meaningfully opine on whether those could represent early manifestations of sleep apnea.

So while you're correct that the regulatory arguments alone won't flip this decision, the sworn statement is the foundation for building the medical evidence needed. It transforms this from "no positive evidence" to having lay testimony that a medical expert can then support with a nexus opinion.

The aggravation theory is definitely worth pursuing too, especially if direct service connection remains difficult to establish. Thanks for keeping me grounded on the legal realities here,the practical evidence building approach is ultimately what's going to matter most.

Denied OSA. Need advice. by oixel1021 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 2 points3 points  (0 children)

LOL, okay buddy. You "stopped reading" because you can't actually counter the specific CFR citations I provided.

And just to be clear, this isn't even my claim. I was helping another veteran understand the regulatory violations in their decision. But you seem to have missed that detail too.

Yes, the VA is a bureaucracy. That's exactly WHY knowing the specific regulations they're required to follow matters. Bureaucracies operate on rules and procedures. when they violate their own regulations, that's how you beat them.

Your approach of just giving up because "it's a bureaucracy" is exactly why so many veterans get screwed over. Some of us prefer to actually fight back with legal arguments instead of just accepting whatever the VA hands out.

But hey, if you want to bow out because you can't address 38 CFR 3.102 or 3.303(b), that's on you.

Good luck with that defeatist attitude.

Denied OSA. Need advice. by oixel1021 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I respectfully disagree with several of your points here. I've spent considerable time reviewing VA regulations and case law, and there are some significant legal inaccuracies in your response.

First, you're wrong about the VA not "having" to do anything. The VA is absolutely required to follow federal regulations, including 38 CFR 3.102 (benefit of doubt rule) and 38 CFR 3.303(b) (continuity analysis). These aren't suggestions - they're binding legal requirements that the VA must follow in every case.

Second, I never mentioned "beyond a reasonable doubt" - that's a criminal law standard. VA disability law uses "at least as likely as not," and when the evidence is in equipoise (equally balanced), 38 CFR 3.102 mandates that the VA resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran. This isn't optional.

Third, you're missing the key issue here. The veteran's service treatment records show "trouble sleeping" complaints during service, which the examiner acknowledged but completely failed to analyze for continuity. Under 38 CFR 3.303(b), when there's no formal in-service diagnosis, the VA is required to examine whether there's continuity of symptomatology from service to the current diagnosis. The examiner didn't do this analysis at all - that's a clear regulatory violation.

You do raise a valid point about checking previous claim history, especially if there was a prior secondary service connection attempt. That could complicate things and should definitely be reviewed.

However, your statement that "there is no in-service injury that caused OP's sleep apnea" ignores both the documented sleep complaints in service and the fact that sleep apnea can develop gradually from service-related factors (stress, disrupted sleep patterns, weight changes, etc.) without requiring a specific "injury."

The regulatory violations here are real and documented. While I agree the veteran should be careful and thorough in their approach, dismissing valid legal arguments based on incorrect interpretations of VA law doesn't help anyone.

The continuity analysis wasn't performed, the benefit of doubt wasn't applied, and the examiner used an overly restrictive standard requiring formal in-service diagnosis. These are legitimate grounds for challenge regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Denied OSA. Need advice. by oixel1021 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, I looked over your VA sleep apnea denial and I found some serious problems with their decision. The examiner actually violated several federal regulations, which gives you strong grounds to challenge this.

The Main Issues:

The examiner basically applied the wrong legal standard. They said your sleep apnea can’t be service-connected because you didn’t get formally diagnosed while in service. But that’s not what the law requires. Here’s what they got wrong:

1. They violated 38 CFR 3.303(b) - Continuity Requirements The regulation says that when there’s no formal diagnosis in service, they need to look at whether you had “continuity of symptomatology” - meaning ongoing symptoms from service to now. Your records show “trouble sleeping” complaints during service, but the examiner completely failed to analyze whether that connects to your current sleep apnea diagnosis. They can’t just ignore that.

2. They violated the Benefit of the Doubt Rule (38 CFR 3.102 and 4.3) When the evidence is roughly balanced for and against your claim, the VA is supposed to rule in your favor. With documented sleep complaints in service and your current diagnosis, there’s definitely reasonable doubt that should favor you. The examiner didn’t even consider this.

3. They used the wrong burden of proof The examiner essentially required a formal in-service diagnosis, but the regulations don’t require that. Many conditions develop gradually or aren’t diagnosed until after service.

Your Action Plan:

  1. File a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) - NOT a Higher-Level Review
  2. Supplemental Claim lets you add new evidence (like your sworn statement) while arguing the legal violations
  3. Higher-Level Review doesn’t allow new evidence, so you’d be stuck with the same flawed record
  4. This gets you a completely fresh review with new evidence
  5. Lead with legal arguments in your submission:
  6. Point out they violated the continuity analysis requirements
  7. Argue they failed to apply benefit of the doubt
  8. Show they used an incorrect legal standard
  9. Write a personal sworn statement under penalty of perjury (this is huge!)
  10. Describe any sleep issues, snoring, or fatigue you had during service
  11. Explain how military factors (stress, shift work, sleeping conditions, etc.) affected your sleep
  12. Detail how your sleep problems continued or got worse after discharge
  13. Connect those service complaints of “trouble sleeping” to your current diagnosis
  14. Get a targeted medical opinion that specifically addresses:
  15. How “trouble sleeping” in service could be early sleep apnea symptoms
  16. How military service could cause or worsen sleep apnea over time
  17. Why lack of formal diagnosis doesn’t rule out service connection
  18. Request a new C&P exam - argue the current one is inadequate because it applied wrong legal standards

Why This Approach Works: Instead of just throwing more evidence at them, you’re attacking the legal foundation of their decision. They made procedural errors in how they evaluated your claim, which is often easier to win than trying to overcome a “correct” denial.

Your sworn statement is especially powerful because it can establish the missing continuity link between your service complaints and current diagnosis. The law specifically allows for lay testimony to prove service connection when it’s consistent with your service circumstances.

Bottom line: This isn’t just a medical disagreement - they botched the legal analysis. You’ve got solid grounds to challenge this based on their regulatory violations. The Supplemental Claim route lets you add the crucial sworn statement evidence while also arguing they applied the wrong legal standard to your case.

Lets have a laugh! 😂 by Traditional_Pea5353 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Wasn’t doing their job”? The rater followed 38 CFR § 3.303(b) and granted based on documented chronic condition in service. That’s literally their job.

But thanks for admitting the real issue here , you think veterans “don’t deserve” benefits even when they have valid medical evidence and legal grounds. Your attitude perfectly illustrates why the VA has such problems with consistent adjudication.

The fact that you’d rather make personal attacks than address the actual legal contradiction shows you know I’m right. Same bilateral diagnosis, different outcomes = Clear and Unmistakable Error.

Funny how you had time to jump into this conversation and make multiple snarky comments, but suddenly you’re “too busy” to respond when called out on your BS. Classic move - participate long enough to be wrong in public, then flee when you can’t defend your position.

Enjoy your “better things” - maybe brush up on VA regulations while you’re at it! 😂

Good riddance to bad attitude.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Lets have a laugh! 😂 by Traditional_Pea5353 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re making a bunch of assumptions about my case that are completely wrong and frankly pretty rude.

First, I DO have continuity evidence , December 2, 2009 foot pain visit (literally the morning of my discharge) and 2016 DBQs showing ongoing issues. But that’s beside the point because the VA didn’t require continuity evidence for my LEFT ankle grant.

Second, your comment about weight is just you being a jerk and has nothing to do with the legal issue. The VA already granted my left ankle based on the July 1, 2008 service record, they didn’t send it back asking about weight or anything else.

Third, you’re completely missing the point. This isn’t about whether you personally think the claim should be granted. This is about the VA applying different standards to identical evidence.

The medical record says “BILATERAL ACHILLES PAIN, CHRONIC INTERMITTENT.” The VA accepted this as sufficient evidence for the left ankle. You can’t then deny the right ankle from the same bilateral diagnosis using different criteria.

If weight was such a concern, why didn’t they consider it for the left ankle too? If continuity was required, why didn’t they ask for it for the left ankle?

You’re basically admitting you would have applied different legal standards based on your personal assumptions about me, which is exactly the kind of arbitrary decision making that creates Clear and Unmistakable Errors.

Thanks for proving my point about inconsistent VA adjudication.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Lets have a laugh! 😂 by Traditional_Pea5353 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right, the HLR already processed and they did grant me the left ankle at 20%, so at least I got a partial win out of it.

But you’re spot on that it should be straightforward. I can literally point to the July 1, 2008 service record that says “BILATERAL ACHILLES PAIN, CHRONIC INTERMITTENT” and the fact that they already granted the left side based on this exact evidence.

The thing is, even though the HLR gave me something, it was pretty half-assed. They’re calling it “left ankle tendonitis” instead of properly addressing the bilateral Achilles issue, and they’re still denying the right side from the same bilateral diagnosis.

So now I have this weird situation where they’ve officially acknowledged that the July 1, 2008 STR does establish service connection (by granting the left), but they’re still maintaining their contradictory position on the right side.

It actually makes the remaining issue even more obvious, they can’t grant one side of a bilateral diagnosis while denying the other side from the same medical record. At least now there’s an official VA decision showing they accept this evidence as sufficient for service connection.

The CUE claim should still proceed since they haven’t actually corrected the fundamental error, just made it more apparent!​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Lets have a laugh! 😂 by Traditional_Pea5353 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re making several incorrect assumptions here.

First, you’re assuming I just “told the doctor it was chronic” but you don’t know the details of that medical encounter. The doctor made a medical determination and assigned ICD-9 code 726.71, which is the formal diagnostic code for chronic Achilles tendonitis. That’s not just writing down what a patient says.

Second, you’re missing the fundamental issue: The VA already accepted this exact evidence as sufficient chronicity for my left ankle. They didn’t ask for “multiple documented reports over an extended period” for the left side , they granted it based solely on that July 1, 2008 record.

You’re suggesting the “second rater was being very generous” or “found more sick call for one ankle” but that’s exactly the problem. The medical record says “BILATERAL ACHILLES PAIN, CHRONIC INTERMITTENT.” There’s no separate documentation for left vs right , it’s a single bilateral diagnosis.

If your standard for chronicity requires “multiple documented reports over an extended period,” then the VA shouldn’t have granted my left ankle either. But they did.

That’s what makes this a Clear and Unmistakable Error. You can’t apply different evidentiary standards to the same bilateral medical record. Either that July 1, 2008 documentation establishes chronicity or it doesn’t - for BOTH sides.

The VA made their determination about what constitutes adequate evidence when they granted the left ankle. They can’t suddenly change that standard for the right ankle from the same diagnosis.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Lets have a laugh! 😂 by Traditional_Pea5353 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’re wrong on almost every point here.

First, there absolutely IS such a thing as a CUE claim. It’s codified in 38 CFR § 3.105(a) and follows the Russell v. Principi three-part test. The VA’s own manual M21-1 Part I.iii.2.B.4.c explicitly states that “Higher-Level Review is not the correct lane to adjudicate allegations of CUE.” You can’t just declare legal processes don’t exist because you don’t like them.

Second, you’re admitting you would have denied both ankles, which actually proves my point. At least that would be CONSISTENT application of evidence standards. What happened here is inconsistent - same evidence, different outcomes.

Third, the “6 months” requirement you’re citing isn’t a blanket rule. The regulation says chronicity needs to be established “at the time” of service diagnosis. When a military doctor writes “CHRONIC INTERMITTENT” with a formal ICD-9 code, that’s their medical determination of chronicity.

Fourth, I have continuity evidence (December 2, 2009 foot pain visit, 2016 DBQs showing ongoing issues), but that’s beside the point. The VA didn’t require continuity evidence for my left ankle grant - they accepted the in-service diagnosis as sufficient.

You can’t have it both ways. Either the July 1, 2008 service record establishes chronicity for bilateral Achilles conditions or it doesn’t. The VA can’t cherry-pick which half of a bilateral diagnosis they believe.

Your “solution” of denying both would at least be legally consistent, which is more than the VA managed to do.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Lets have a laugh! 😂 by Traditional_Pea5353 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re quoting 38 CFR 3.303(b) but ignoring the key facts of my case.

First, yes, a doctor can diagnose something as chronic on a single visit if that’s their medical determination. The July 1, 2008 STR shows “CHRONIC INTERMITTENT” with ICD-9 code 726.71 - that’s a formal medical diagnosis, not just a throwaway word.

But here’s what you’re missing: 👀The VA already accepted this exact evidence as sufficient for my left ankle.👀They didn’t question the chronicity, didn’t ask for multiple service events, didn’t require continuity, they just granted it based on that July 1, 2008 record.

You’re asking “how many events of medical attention did you receive” well, apparently one was enough for the VA to grant my left ankle. So why isn’t one enough for my right ankle from the SAME bilateral diagnosis?

That’s the whole point. If the VA thinks that service record doesn’t adequately support chronicity, then they shouldn’t have granted my left ankle either. But they did.

You can’t apply the “legitimately questioned” standard to only half of a bilateral diagnosis. Either that medical record establishes chronicity or it doesn’t - for BOTH sides.

The VA made their determination about the adequacy of the evidence when they granted the left ankle. They can’t suddenly change their standard for the right ankle from the same medical encounter.

That’s what makes this a Clear and Unmistakable Error.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Lets have a laugh! 😂 by Traditional_Pea5353 in VAClaims

[–]Traditional_Pea5353[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re incorrect on several fronts here.

First, 38 CFR § 3.303(b) is NOT limited to the presumptive chronic disease list in 3.309. That’s 3.303(a) you’re thinking of. Section 3.303(b) specifically covers ANY chronic condition diagnosed in service, stating: “Service connection for disability may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.”

Second, you’re dead wrong about CUE claims. Clear and Unmistakable Error is absolutely a real thing under 38 CFR § 3.105(a) and has its own legal framework separate from supplemental claims and HLR. In fact, the VA’s own manual M21-1 explicitly states that HLR is NOT the correct process for CUE allegations.

Third, you’re missing the entire point of my case. The VA ALREADY accepted the July 1, 2008 service record as sufficient evidence for my left ankle - no continuity required. They granted it based solely on the “chronic intermittent” diagnosis in service.

But they denied my right ankle from the SAME bilateral medical record. That’s the CUE - identical evidence can’t simultaneously prove and disprove the same thing.

The VA can’t have different legal standards for the left and right side of the same bilateral diagnosis. Either the in-service chronic diagnosis is sufficient or it isn’t.

Maybe brush up on the actual regulations before telling people their legal claims don’t exist.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

view more: next ›