![]() ![]() VA NEWS FLASH from Larry Scott at VA Watchdog dot Org -- 08-01-2006 #1 |
|
|
BOMBSHELL COURT RULING ON VETERANS WITH MORE THAN ONE VA CLAIM PENDING -- When VA acts on one claim but does not address other claims, the other claims are deemed denied. VA does not have to provide veteran with notice of denied claims.
You won't find this on the VA web site. I received this from an attorney who represents veterans in the claims process. Information below:
--------------- The Fed. Cir. held that "[w]here the veteran
files more than one claim with the RO at the same time, and the RO’s
decision acts (favorably or unfavorably) on one of the claims but fails to
specifically address the other claim, the second claim is deemed denied,
and the appeal period begins to run." (citing Andrews v. Nicholson, 421
F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). Thus, an unrepresented or poorly represented
claimant could have the time to appeal the "deemed denied" claims run out
without even knowing that the claims had been denied! --------------- I asked for a clarification about this: Would this apply to claims that have absolutely nothing to do with each other? Example...I file a claim for injury to hand. I then file a claim for tinnitus. A ruling comes down on the hand, but no ruling on tinnitus. Would the claim for tinnitus be automatically denied? Or is this just with claims that relate to each other? Attorney's answer below: --------------- With regard to your question, your example is exactly correct. If a veteran files claims for a back disability, tinnitus and a psychiatric disability, all at the same time, and only one of those claims is adjudicated, the others are "deemed denied" under the holding of this case. The most damaging thing to the veteran is that he or she would never receive notice from VA that the other claims were "deemed denied" and that the appeal period had begun to run on those claims. If no NOD is submitted within 1 year, the decision becomes final, and the veteran would have to submit new and material evidence in order to reopen those claims. If any of those claims are eventually granted, the effective dater could only be the date of the request to reopen those claims, rather than the date of filing for the original claims. Another veterans' attorney has also brought up
the problem of how a veteran could submit a claim for CUE (clear and
unmistakable error) with specificity, as the law requires, when there has
been no reason given for the denials. ---------------
|
|
|
|