Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2010/02/08/definition-of-what-is-a-veterans-claim-set-forth-rice-v-shinseki-no-06-1445/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:35:52+00:00

Document:
The court sets out to define what a “Claim” is. This should help eliminate confusion in decisions.
for . . . dependency and indemnity compensation.”), or a “claim for pension,” Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 232, 247 (2007) (“[The appellant] was informed that his claim for pension was denied . . . .”).
Before HAGEL, MOORMAN, and DAVIS, Judges.
for TDIU at any time, whether on a VA Form 21-8940 or in any other manner.
the matter for readjudication consistent with this opinion.
Mr. Rice filed an application for compensation or pension for PTSD. The St.
claim), and assigned a 30% disability rating.
with an effective date of December 23, 1998. The letter also stated: “Mr.
Decision Review Hearing.” R. at 384. The letter stated in part that Mr.
officer review of his claim de novo.
December 23, 1998. The RO also granted TDIU, effective November 1, 2000.
[S]ocial [S]ecurity disability decision.” R. at 669.
On April 2, 2003, Mr. Rice filed an NOD with the May30, 2002, RO decision.
38 C.F.R. § 3.340(a) (2008).
percentage standards set forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b) (2008).
a new claim for TDIU.
assigned for TDIU and dismissed the appeal without prejudice.
18, 2008, the Court heard oral argument in this matter.
no freestanding claim for TDIU.
a claim, e.g., an “original claim for benefits,” Acciola v. Peake, 22 Vet.
the result of new claims for increased compensation.”). See also 38 U.S.C.
also often been referred to as “claims.” See May v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App.
the definition of “finality” as to CUE claims that is provided in 38 C.F.R.
compensation.”), or a “claim for pension,” Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App.
appellant] was informed that his claim for pension was denied . . . .”).
earlier effective date. See Rudd v.
Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 296, 299 (2006).
circumstance. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 111, 116 (2008).
with the appellate review of an initial disability rating. Chotta, 22 Vet.
App. at 82; Dunlap, 21 Vet.App. at 115.
1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
(Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Bernklau v. Principi, 291 F.3d 795, 799 (Fed.
12 Vet.App. 413, 420-21 (1999).
§ 5110(b)(2); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2); Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet.App.
material on its face. Cf. Voracek v. Nicholson, 421 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed.
required to consider the potential applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b).
initial disability rating assigned for PTSD. R. at 379, 384. Because Mr.
remanded or referred an issue as to entitlement to TDIU. See Holland v.
Board referred to RO request for TDIU).
applicable to a claim for increased compensation. R. at 5, 10.
for PTSD, the condition upon which entitlement to TDIU was based.
observations to guide the Board’s consideration on remand. Previous HitQuirinNext Hit v.
guidance to the district court on remand).
§ 3.156(b). The time period to file a NOD to an RO decision is one year.
compensation for PTSD. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b).
apply to a TDIU claim.” R.
and asserted in 1984 and again in 1992 that his condition had worsened.
Hurd, 13 Vet.App. at 450.
2 Vet.App. 91, 94 (1992).
entitlement to an initial 100% schedular disabilityrating for PTSD, Mr.
the evidence in this matter.
Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369, 372-73 (1999) (per curiam order).
consider, if necessary, the application of staged ratings. See Fenderson v.
REMANDED for readjudication consistent with this opinion.

References: v. 
 § 3
 § 4
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 

§ 5110
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v.

 v.

§ 3
 § 3
 v. 
 v.