Source: https://community.hadit.com/topic/70298-persistant/page/2/
Timestamp: 2020-06-01 18:28:43
Document Index: 139399509

Matched Legal Cases: ['art, 40', '§ 1114', '§ 1114', '§ 3', '§ 1114', '§ 3', '§ 1114', 'art, 40']

Persistant - Page 2 - VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims Research Forum - VA Disability Compensation Benefits Forums - HadIt.com Veterans
I think all we need is the decision that awarded the PN, - 10% for each leg.
I do not see any past denials for the DMII or IHD.
It is those denials that would warrant a Nehmer review.
However- and I hope others here will chime in-
on page 2/9 of the 0012 scan, you added ,on the side the PN awards.
I feel the PN awards along with the 40 DMII and the 100% Heart disease should have warranted consideration of SMC S....if not under Bradley V Peake, then under SMC S Housebound.
Your husband could not work, as the decision states, so I assume he would fit into the Housebound criteria.
Do you have a PN decision from VA that also shows the ratings of 100% heart, 40% DMII, and then the 2 10%s for the PN?
If so I think they committed a CUE (Clear and unmistakable error) in that decision if they did not consider SMC at all.
A SMC CUE would provide retro regardless of Nehmer. This does not appear to me to be a Nehmer claim.
I will read over the downloads again...maybe I missed the PN award.
And I will find Bradley V Peake and the Housebound criteria.
The Housebound criteria and also Bradley V Peake are explained in this recent BVA decision.
"Special monthly compensation provided by 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) is payable where a veteran has a single service-connected disability rated as total and either (1) has additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent or more, separate and distinct from the 100 percent service-connected disability and involving different anatomical segments or bodily systems, or (2) is permanently housebound by reason of service-connected disability or disabilities. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i). This requirement is met when the veteran is substantially confined as a direct result of service-connected disabilities to his or her dwelling and the immediate premises or, if institutionalized, to the ward or clinical areas, and it is reasonably certain that the disability or disabilities and resultant confinement will continue throughout his or her lifetime. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1114(s); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(i).
For purposes of satisfying the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s), a rating for a total disability rating for individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) may be considered a total rating, and any disabilities that do not form the basis for the TDIU may satisfy the requirement for additional service-connected disability or disabilities independently ratable at 60 percent or more under Section 1114(s). See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280, 291-93 (2008).
https://www.va.gov/vetapp17/files2/1710914.txt
I feel that your husband's SC disabilities warranted SMC consideration for either the 100% plus 60% due to the PN award which I cannot find here- or under the SMC S Housebound criteria.
I also hope you find an attorney , or VSO, or accredited agent ( like our member ASKNOD here) to raise the CUE issue.
Since this does not involve Nehmer, I believe this is the only way you could obtain any further accrued benefits from the VA.
I won a SMC CUE .The CUE claim has to be worded to reflect the SMC Mandate and the "lack of consideration" of SMC when the medical evidence warranted it .
It is the "lack of consideration" of the SMC Statutory Mandate that was the basis of my CUE. I knew if they considered SMC regulations they would award it retro as an accrued amount and they did.
Whoever you get to help you can find my SMC CUE info here. It is basically a simple CUE to file.
I didnt check the rate info to make sure they did not include the SMC S amount on the downloads.
Still, if they did consider SMC and deny it, or award it ,that would appear in one of their decisions and I think it would be in the PN award decision.
Ok---I think we do have all the info we need---
As I understand the pdfs , the heart rating became 100% in an April 2007 decision ( Scan 0012 page
1 and 2 of 9)
The PNs were awarded at 10% each in an August 2006 decision in which the DMII had been 20%
And the heart disease was 60% at that time. Scan 0012 page 8 of 9.
The Cue appears to be in the decision appearing as Page 1 and 2 of the 0012 Scan
They granted the 100% in the April 2007 decision and listed 100% EED as Nov 2006 but in the narrative they state the EED was July 11, 2006.
As you correctly wrote on the decision they forgot the 2 PN awards of 10% each, yet they are clearly listed on the rating sheet dated August 14, 2006.
This was a DRO review decision.
From what I deduce here, that decision contains a CUE, due to the lack of proper consideration and application of the SMC Statutory mandate.
You were represented by the Vietnam Veterans of America.
I would contact them if I were you to see if they would review that August 2006 decision.
Please feel free the email them or give them a copy of my comments here.
I see no reason why, since your accrued application was timely, they would not consider the SMC and hopefully award it to you.
Hopefully others will read the rating sheet of the 0012 scan, the one that is a DRO decision and lists 100% SC heart, 40% DMII, 10 PN left leg and 10% right leg.
I see no consideration at all given to SMC S under either theory of entitlement.
Although my SMC CUE was awarded in my AO IHD Nehmer decision, it had no bearing on the Nehmer review,except for the FTCA/1151 award) because the IHD CUE I filed in 2004 did have bearing and they awarded that as well.
Those 2 CUE claims had not been transferred to the BVA yet and I asked Nehmer RO to give priority to these 2 CUE claims , as they were filed long before the AO IHD claim was.
The CUE is on page 8 of the 0012 scan dated 8/14/2006.
Because it does not consider the DMII increrased rating of 40% with an EED of Nov 8. 2006 on page 1.
To me that is SMC at 100% plus 60, but even if not, this veteran was definitely housebound by all available medical records, in VA's possession, at time of the 2006 decision.
VA makes more errors on SMC than we can possibly know.
That is why all veterans and their survivors need to be up to speed on the SMC regulations.
Edited August 2, 2017 by Berta
I ws going to write the CUE for you but noticed something is wrong here in the pdfs.
The date of the DRO review is 8/14/2006 (page 1 of the 0012 scan) but page 2 of the same scan does not jive with the dates.
Do you have the actual dated award letter for when they awarded the 100% SC for heart and the 40% for the DMII?