Thank you all very much, Amy Gallay, Pittpan2005, Jason,combat eng, warrior644, thats what I needed to know, Be Blessed, Good luck, Ret. SSG Lawrence
IU conditions vs 100% rating?
- Thread starter AmyGallay
- Start date
from what i know when you apply for IU you are requesting an increase in rating for the specific conditions that are precluding you from obtaining or keeping meaningful employment if or when you apply for IU you will have the C&P exams then it goes to a rater who will decide if your claim meets the rating requirements for 100% if it does you will be granted a scheduler rating and IU will be a mute point if not rated 100% you will be rated for IU and a decision will be made weather to pay at the 100% rate with your current disability rating or to deny the IU i hope this helps
My original IDES/VA received a "Proposed" 100% IU rating. I was also in receipt of SSDI.
Upon military discharge and finalization of that IDES/VA Claim, the VA reviewed their math and realized my claim had reached 100% the "natural" VA math way. None of the "proposed" rating percentages were changed - they all remained the same as in the "proposed" rating scheme, so I think the VA got mixed up on what/which compensation route (IU or P&T) to place my claim on.
So my finalization IDES/VA claim came back as 100% P&T and the IU was dropped.
In addition, there were four other medical issues that were service-connected on that claim, but these were given either a 0% rating or were "deferred" at that "finalization" time.
Those four "deferred" issues have just recently been VA C&P examined, medical evidence reviewed, and rated. So in addition to the original 100% P&T, I now have another 30%, two 10%s, and another 0% to add to that original total. These four conditions also received a retro-dated rating that matches the same effective date as all my other 100% P&T claimed issues.
17 1/2 months since my initial AD discharge to PDRL, my entire initial IDES/VA claim is now completed and this claim has been closed by the VA.
V/r,
nwlivewire
Upon military discharge and finalization of that IDES/VA Claim, the VA reviewed their math and realized my claim had reached 100% the "natural" VA math way. None of the "proposed" rating percentages were changed - they all remained the same as in the "proposed" rating scheme, so I think the VA got mixed up on what/which compensation route (IU or P&T) to place my claim on.
So my finalization IDES/VA claim came back as 100% P&T and the IU was dropped.
In addition, there were four other medical issues that were service-connected on that claim, but these were given either a 0% rating or were "deferred" at that "finalization" time.
Those four "deferred" issues have just recently been VA C&P examined, medical evidence reviewed, and rated. So in addition to the original 100% P&T, I now have another 30%, two 10%s, and another 0% to add to that original total. These four conditions also received a retro-dated rating that matches the same effective date as all my other 100% P&T claimed issues.
17 1/2 months since my initial AD discharge to PDRL, my entire initial IDES/VA claim is now completed and this claim has been closed by the VA.
V/r,
nwlivewire
Congrats!!!!
You are welcome!
Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."
Best Wishes!
Indeed, congratulations; it's now CRSC application time maybe?
Thus, I quite often comment that "possessing well-informed knowledge is truly a powerful equalizer."
Best Wishes!
Dear AmyGallay,
It's my understanding that in order to qualify for the IU benefit, the Veteran has to be unable to work AND
(1) have ONE service-connected disability rated at least 60% OR
(2) have two or disabilities with ONE disability rated at least 40%, and have a total combined rating of at least 70%.
I'm wondering if your part-time work is under the SGA income threshold like Social Security uses, or if you qualify for IU based on the either/or of the two conditions as stated above?
V/r,
nwlivewire
It's my understanding that in order to qualify for the IU benefit, the Veteran has to be unable to work AND
(1) have ONE service-connected disability rated at least 60% OR
(2) have two or disabilities with ONE disability rated at least 40%, and have a total combined rating of at least 70%.
I'm wondering if your part-time work is under the SGA income threshold like Social Security uses, or if you qualify for IU based on the either/or of the two conditions as stated above?
V/r,
nwlivewire
I was told I had sufficiant points for SSDI. But I think they discriminated me due to my age. Because other SM with my same conditions or less, so were approved.
I have no VA rating, so I could not qualify for IU yet.
So what is the question re: IU added to your claim?
Have you looked up the VASRD to see what your possible rating outcomes might be based on the evidence in your case file for each particular issue you have?
I looked up the VASRD ratings for all my issues while I was waiting for the VA to provide my initial ratings, and what they came back with was correct in my case - based on the evidence in my case files.
V/r,
nwlivewire
It is showing IU and that I applied for it, when I did not. It stats needing evicence and the date to accomplish this as expired. It does not state which condition needs evidence or if anything qualifies for IU.
And I now have a completion date of 09/14-04/15 after waiting 2 years already.
They are idiots who do not read any of my records, give miss information through their 800 number, and do not explain anything properly or do anything timely, or keep their promises.
I do not know why the IU is showing on my Ebenes. I do not qualify through my DoD rating, as 60% for 3 conditions. I would qualify through my VA rating, but the "request" and "closeout" were over a month before my C&Ps were completed at the VA. I have no idea what is going on.
I'm thinking since you know nothing yet. They may have an idea you may be up to or able to qualify for IU. The county VA person helped me submit the paperwork for this. I would go ahead and submit the paperwork and see what happens.
If I was you I would go and see a VSO in-person and get them to look your info infront of you and see what going on! That would be more reliable than ebenefits!
I know your frustrated but try to get as much accurate information possible from a more reliable source
As far as the completion date, it's just an estimate, they change often, also with the shutdown the backlog is starting to pile back up so take that into consideration
I know you've stated you have waited 2 years but you have to worry about right now, your medical retirement doesn't really factor in with the VA
Good Luck
I know your frustrated but try to get as much accurate information possible from a more reliable source
As far as the completion date, it's just an estimate, they change often, also with the shutdown the backlog is starting to pile back up so take that into consideration
I know you've stated you have waited 2 years but you have to worry about right now, your medical retirement doesn't really factor in with the VA
Good Luck
It does factor in. Those going through an MEB are having a 6-12 month turn around on VA ratings. I should not be PUNISHED because I missed the new system by 3 weeks.
SM who started their MEBs THIS year already have results.
This is my ORIGINAL rating, and veterans are getting original, second and third amendments, and claims processed in the same matter of time. This is NOT right!
Yea but your rating from DOD isn't gonna determine your rating with VA, that's why you completed new exams
I understand that. But how does that justify a proposed wait time of 43 MONTHS for a SM who went and retired through an MEB?
Jason Perry
Founder and Leader
Site Founder
Staff Member
PEB Forum Veteran
Lifetime Supporter
Registered Member
You do not have to specifically apply for IU. I wrote about this earlier in this thread.
The VA has a duty to assist Veterans with their claims. Part of that duty has been found by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) to mean that the VA has to not only adjudicate claims expressly raised by the veteran, it must also adjudicate any issues which are reasonably raised in all documents or oral testimony submitted prior to a final agency decision (i.e., BVA appeal).
See Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341, 347 (1999); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34 (1998); Solomon v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 396, 402 (1994); EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 324, 326 (1991); Roberson, 251 F.3d at 1384 (holding that the VA must give a sympathetic reading to veteran's filings by determining all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations); Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Even if you do not meet the percentages for your ratings to qualify for IU award under the schedule, you can still be awarded by virtue of an "extra- schedular" rating.
If evidence is submitted that reasonably shows that you may be entitled to IU, this is essentially an inferred claim. It must be considered by the VA:
"Once a claim is received, VA must review the claim, supporting documents, and oral testimony in a liberal manner to identify and adjudicate all reasonably raised claims. See EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 324, 326 (1991). Additionally, VA is required to apply all relevant law in adjudicating the claim even though not raised by the appellant. See Shockley v. West, 11 Vet. App. 208, 214 (1998) (citing EF v. Derwinski, supra); see also Collier v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 247, 251 (1992) (holding that although the appellant had not filed the specific form asking for individual unemployability, an informal claim was raised because he had continually stated he was unable to work due to his service-connected mental disorder); Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 118, 121 (holding that VA was obliged to infer a claim for special monthly compensation where it "may be applicable and the veteran does not place his eligibility at issue"). Where such a review "reasonably reveals that the claimant is seeking a particular benefit, the Board is required to adjudicate the issue of the claimant's entitlement to such a benefit or, if appropriate, to remand the issue to the RO for development and adjudication of the issue." Suttman v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 127, 132 (1993); see generally Servello, 3 Vet. App. at 198-200 (discussing evidence that could show "a belief" by the veteran that he was entitled to TDIU)."
Norris v. W., 12 Vet. App. 413, 417 (U.S. App. Vet. Cl. 1999)
Options
The VA has a duty to assist Veterans with their claims. Part of that duty has been found by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) to mean that the VA has to not only adjudicate claims expressly raised by the veteran, it must also adjudicate any issues which are reasonably raised in all documents or oral testimony submitted prior to a final agency decision (i.e., BVA appeal).
See Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341, 347 (1999); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34 (1998); Solomon v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 396, 402 (1994); EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 324, 326 (1991); Roberson, 251 F.3d at 1384 (holding that the VA must give a sympathetic reading to veteran's filings by determining all potential claims raised by the evidence, applying all relevant laws and regulations); Szemraj v. Principi, 357 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Even if you do not meet the percentages for your ratings to qualify for IU award under the schedule, you can still be awarded by virtue of an "extra- schedular" rating.
If evidence is submitted that reasonably shows that you may be entitled to IU, this is essentially an inferred claim. It must be considered by the VA:
"Once a claim is received, VA must review the claim, supporting documents, and oral testimony in a liberal manner to identify and adjudicate all reasonably raised claims. See EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 324, 326 (1991). Additionally, VA is required to apply all relevant law in adjudicating the claim even though not raised by the appellant. See Shockley v. West, 11 Vet. App. 208, 214 (1998) (citing EF v. Derwinski, supra); see also Collier v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 247, 251 (1992) (holding that although the appellant had not filed the specific form asking for individual unemployability, an informal claim was raised because he had continually stated he was unable to work due to his service-connected mental disorder); Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 118, 121 (holding that VA was obliged to infer a claim for special monthly compensation where it "may be applicable and the veteran does not place his eligibility at issue"). Where such a review "reasonably reveals that the claimant is seeking a particular benefit, the Board is required to adjudicate the issue of the claimant's entitlement to such a benefit or, if appropriate, to remand the issue to the RO for development and adjudication of the issue." Suttman v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 127, 132 (1993); see generally Servello, 3 Vet. App. at 198-200 (discussing evidence that could show "a belief" by the veteran that he was entitled to TDIU)."
Norris v. W., 12 Vet. App. 413, 417 (U.S. App. Vet. Cl. 1999)
Options