As a widow to a World War II Veteran who lives with limited financial resources for her Health Care in Florida and Daughter. I am going to use the Citation Nr: 0335368 from the Decision Date: 12/17/03 with Archive Date: 12/24/03 to support the entitlement of the Veteran DOCKET as NO. (95-16 812). This was an appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana. THE ISSUE The entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for gout was approved for the Veteran on the case. The Veteran presented had the same case Miguel A. Hernandez Rosado taught to ignore his pain but his wife saw him on his pain. I must comment a perfect brainwash from the agency for what was expected from these soldiers. The only drink that Miguel would like was cold beer, eat Shrimp and eat red meat and the consumption of these products learned during the service created excess of uric acid therefore gout. Miguel did not smoke nor had high blood pressure but his Cholesterol was high and his weight was perfect. (The issue whether the veterans VA compensation benefits are subject to recoupment of special separation benefits (SSB) but without resources the spouse has to pursue the amount mentioned on the case that was subject of the mention case or docket number. This widow needs this amount to order to put her documents and Daughter in order due to her Disability. These Survivors have suffered enough due to the lack of resources at the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Florida to widows. REPRESENTATION The Spouse Mrs. Eileen Genara Currás Negrón has to represent herself, as there are no resources to her or her husband Miguel Ángel Hernández Rosado as a Student of Paralegal Science who does not has resources in Florida. She is an American and the Birth Certificate Proves that fact that and would like to enclosed on a file but scams are everywhere and I cannot believe a document cannot be send electronically. Miguel pronounced dead on November 06, 1998 in Miami Florida from blocked veins as the attending doctor said in the emergency area told his wife of his neck. His Death Certificate enclosed listed 3 conditions as Cardio respirature Arrest, Acute Myocardial infart and Coronary Artery RISCOSE and I also would like to enclose was dated November 12, 1998 described as State of Florida Office of Vital Statistics Certified Copy Certificate of death digitized by the spouse to a PDF on 7/1/2014. HRS FORM 1564 (1096) as the cause of death the he served honorably the United States according to the Original Application for Servicemen’s Readjustment Allowance State Agency Form 1382 and a digitized format of a PDF file was done by the wife on July 1, 2014. Hoping that a witness hearing with the marriage certificate on the appeal to be done since the widow and spouse Mrs. Eileen Genara Currás Negrón cannot have her Daughter testify because she was only four years old when Miguel died and she cannot remember much plus her father adored her and the situation was traumatic to her when we had to move to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to get the Health Care the spouse was denied mother since she got since March 2000. Here her Birth and our Certificate of Marriage that the VA should have receive a long time ago. The fact is that is not easy without Aid to a widow. INTRODUCTION The fact is the veteran served on active duty from July 21 1943 to February 2, 1946 and would like to enclosed the document since Miguel Always mentioned the fact to his Spouse. The hearing officers must keep in mind that he was force to serve the USA and he was always honor to serve the USA for the ideals of the union of Puerto RICO as a State to the USA. I hope this matter will be brought to the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board). The State of Florida has been terrible to me by the Governor Rick Scott requesting the FBI Records of the Spouse. He told me these facts by the governor to the spouse on a telephone call to the phone of the house. The documents acknowledged the facts of widow to a Veteran of WWII and schooling. The above-mentioned appeal was use on the service of other veteran service. The spouse to Miguel hopes to get the hearing as soon of the end of 2014. She hopes they will decide positive too on the case in favour of the Veteran and the ill spouse for his memory. The spouse on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Washington DC since Florida did a horrible work on the Disability of Mrs. Currás. The RO granted service connection for gout of the case of Miguel because of the gout that he got every year on tax season on all his extremities and also recorded at the VA in Indianapolis, Indiana. I hope will get assistance of high percentage of disability rating effective to February 2, 1946, the date following separation from the veterans active duty. The spouse will provide an oral testimony on the hearing to be held before a hearing officer, a transcript associated with the claims that will be file. Her condition of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) was diagnosed on March 26, 2000 at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida .She had to wait more than 14 years In a September 1994 a hearing officer decision, the hearing officer granted a 20 percent disability rating for gout, effective on September 9, 1992. . In a November 1994 rating decision, the RO assigned an effective date of September 9, 1992, for the 20 percent disability rating for gout. In March 1995, the veteran failed to report for a scheduled hearing officer hearing at the RO. In December 1996, the veteran failed to report for a Travel Board hearing scheduled at the RO. In August 2000, the veterans claim for the file was subsequently transferred to the VA RO in New Orleans, Louisiana and she hopes to be seen in Washington DC. The area of work that the Veteran did after his service was Accountant and Tax Auditor before the IRS. Private Doctors in Puerto Rico attended the Veteran but once he move to Indiana to pursue his love his spouse. The veteran could have raise the issues of total disability ratings under 38 C.F.R. § 4.29 for periods of hospitalization. REMAND This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the Veterans Benefits Administration Appeals Management Center (VBA AMC). The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West 2002) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBAs Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs (or VBA AMC) to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the CAVC. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03. The CAVC has held that section 5103(a), as amended by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and § 3.159(b), as recently amended, require VA to inform a claimant of which evidence VA will provide and which evidence claimant is to provide, and remanding where VA failed to do so. See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002); see also 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A and 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2003). The RO did not provide the appellant a development letter on the issue on appeal that is consistent with the notice requirements of the VCAA, as clarified by Quartuccio, supra. In a decision promulgated on September 22, 2003, Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) invalidated the 30-day response period contained in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1) as inconsistent with 38 U.S.C. § 5103(b)(1). The CAFC made a conclusion similar to the one reached in Disabled Am. Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (reviewing a related Board regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 19.9). The CAFC found that the 30-day period provided in 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1) to respond to a VCAA duty to notify letter is misleading and detrimental to claimants whose claims are prematurely denied short of the statutory one-year period provided for response. Inasmuch as the issue on appeal must be remanded to the VBA AMC for above-mentioned reason, the VBA AMC will be asked to accomplish other additional necessary development - obtaining records and affording the veteran an examination. The Board observes that additional due process requirements may be applied as a result of the enactment of the VCAA and its implementing regulations. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A and 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159 and 3.326(a) (2003). Accordingly, this case was REMANDED for the action cited: 1. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter that the Board has remanded to the VBA AMC. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). 2. The VBA AMC should obtain any temporary claims file for the veteran from the RO. 3. The VBA AMC must review the claims file and ensure that all VCAA notice obligations have been satisfied in accordance with the recent decision in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as well as 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5103A (West 2002), and any other applicable legal precedent. Such notice should specifically apprise him of the evidence and information necessary to substantiate his claim and inform him whether he or VA bears the burden of producing or obtaining that evidence or information, and of the appropriate time limitation within which to submit any evidence or information.38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and (b) (West 2002); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). A record of his notification must be incorporated into the claims file. 4. The VBA AMC should ask the appellant to identify all sources of treatment or evaluation, VA and non-VA, for gout for the period from September 1992 to the present. After obtaining any necessary authorization, the VBA AMC should obtain any medical records not currently on file. Regardless of the appellants response, the VBA AMC should endeavour to obtain all outstanding, relevant VA treatment reports. In any event, the VBA AMC should obtain all records from the VA Medical Center in Alexandria, Louisiana, for the periods from September 2001 to March 2002 and from November 2002 to the present. In addition, the VBA AMC should obtain the following records from the VA Medical Center in Decatur, Georgia: all outpatient treatment records for the period from December 1995 to March 1999; and all inpatient clinical records for the hospitalizations for the periods from October 25, 1996, to November 21, 1996, and from November 26, 1996, to December 24, 1996. Additionally, the VBA AMC should contact the LSU Medical Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, and obtain all records pertaining to treatment or evaluation of gout for the period of Service Septembers 1992 to the present. 5. The VBA AMC should contact the Social Security Administration and obtain all medical records and decision(s) pertaining to all claims for Social Security disability benefits filed by the previous veteran. 6. The VBA AMC should schedule the veteran for a VA special orthopedic examination by an orthopedic surgeon to his bones buried at the National Cemetery in Bayamon, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or other available appropriate medical specialist including on a fee basis if necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the current nature and extent of severity of his gout, to include any chronic residuals since MS has advance on the Spouse. I understand gout makes significant damage to the bones The claims file, copies of the criteria under 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59 (2003), and a separate copy of this remand must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior and pursuant to conduction and completion of the examination and the examiner must annotate the examination report in this regard. Any further indicated special studies should be conducted. The examiner should also elicit a detailed history of the symptomatology of gout from the veteran. It is requested that the examiner provide explicit responses to the following: (a) Does the veteran has an active gout? (b) The examiner should describe the symptoms of active gout. (c) The examiner should indicate whether the veteran has weight loss and/or anemia due to active gout. (d) The examiner should describe the frequency and severity of any incapacitating episodes of active gout and report the history of such symptomatology. (e) The examiner should describe any interference in employment caused by active gout. (f) The examiner should describe any chronic residuals of gout. For any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout, the examiner should record pertinent medical complaints, symptoms, and clinical findings, including specifically active and passive range of motion of the specific joint(s) involved and any ankylosis present, and comment on the functional limitations, if any, caused by any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout in light of the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59. It is requested that the examiner provide explicit responses to the following questions: (a) Do any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout involve only the joint structure, or do they also involve the muscles and nerves? (b) Do any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout cause weakened movement, excess fatigability, in coordination, pain on movement, swelling, deformity, or atrophy, and if so, what is the effect of these manifestations on the ability of the veteran to perform average employment in a civil occupation? If the severity of these manifestations cannot be quantified, the examiner must document that in the examination report. (c) With respect to subjective complaints of pain, the examiner is requested to specifically comment on whether pain is visibly manifested on movement of the joints, the presence and degree of, or absence of, muscle atrophy attributable to any chronic residuals of the service connected gout, the presence or absence of changes in condition of the skin indicative of disuse due to any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout, or the presence or absence of any other objective manifestation that would demonstrate disuse or functional impairment due to pain attributable to any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout. (d) The examiner is also requested to comment upon whether or not there are any other medical or other problems that have an impact on the functional capacity affected by any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout, and if such overlap exists, the degree to which the nonservice-connected problems creates functional impairment that may be dissociated from the impairment caused by any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout. If the functional impairment created by the nonservice-connected problem cannot be dissociated, the examiner should so indicate. (e) If there is painful motion of joint(s) affected by any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout, the examiner should state at which point, in degrees if possible, the range of motion pain begins and ends. If such a determination cannot be made, the examiner must document in the examination report that such a determination could not be made. (f) The examiner should specifically determine whether the subjective complaints of pain regarding any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout are supported by the objective findings made on examination. If unable to make this determination, the examiner must state in the examination report. (g) The examiner should describe any inference in employment caused by any chronic residuals of the service-connected gout. Any opinions expressed by the examiner must be accompanied by a complete rationale. 7. Thereafter, the VBA AMC should review the claims file to ensure that all of the foregoing requested development has been completed. In particular, the VBA AMC should review the requested examination report and required medical opinions to ensure that they are responsive to and in complete compliance with the directives of this remand and if they are not, the VBA AMC should implement corrective procedures. The Board errs as a matter of law when it fails to ensure compliance, and further remand will be mandated. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In addition, the VBA AMC must review the claims file to ensure that any other notification and development action required by the VCAA is completed. In particular, the VBA AMC must review the claims file and ensure that all VCAA notice and development obligations have been satisfied in accordance with the recent decision in Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as well as 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5103A (West 2002), and any other applicable legal precedent. 8. Thereafter, the VBA AMC should readjudicate the issue on appeal, under a broad interpretation of the applicable regulations and the CAVC decisions, consistent with 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3 and 4.7 (2003). the VBA AMC should readjudicate the issue with consideration of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, and 4.59 (2003); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); and DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995), as applicable. In particular, the VBA AMC should consider whether a higher rating is warranted under Diagnostic Codes 5002 and 5017 on the basis of an active process or on the basis of chronic residuals. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the veterans satisfaction, the VBA AMC should issue a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The SSOC must contain notice of all relevant actions taken on the claim for benefits, to include a summary of the evidence and applicable law and regulations considered pertinent to the issues currently on appeal. A reasonable period of time for a response should be afforded. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if in order. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any outcome warranted. The appellant need take no action unless otherwise notified by the VBA AMC; however, the veteran is hereby notified that failure to report for any scheduled VA examination(s) without good cause shown may adversely affect the outcome of his claim for an increased evaluation, and may in fact result in its denial. 38 .F.R. § 3.655 (2003); Connolly v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 566 (1991). RONALD R. BOSCH signed this document as a Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board is appealable to the CAVC. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2003). The spouse has hold enough silence time for a positive opinion of the veteran and his wife plus his Daughter Francesca Marie Hernández Currás.We must think of the Two Veterans Survivors. Many people will have a contradictory opinion of my document but these is the best the economy forces to do. I only want to put my apartment in order and do the cremation of my body to be send to the National Cemetery in Puerto Rico.
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 20:06:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015