J Basser: 0:03

Welcome folks to another episode of Jay Bassard's Exposed Vet Productions. My name is John Stacy. They call me Jay Bassard. Jay Basser's official name that I've always had for the past 40 years. Today is Thursday. It's August 28th, 2025. And we got a special show today. We got one and only Mr. Barry Fraley. He's riding side saddle today. How are you doing, Barry? I'm good. Top side of the grass. And our guest today is uh I don't need an introduction. Uh this is Mr. Jim Radonia. Uh Jim Radonia is an accredited VA appeals agent based out of the beautiful city of San Diego. He's part of the uh Eagle Veterans Law with Katrina Eagle. Uh that's pretty cool. Today we're going to discuss uh effective dates. And uh this is a very interesting topic, so we haven't done this in a while. Jim, how are you doing?

Jim Radogna : 0:56

I'm doing really well, John. It's good to see you. It's been a while. It's been a while since I've been. But but VA has been keeping me busy every moment since last time I saw you.

J Basser: 1:09

You know, that's good, man. You know, it's uh if you don't like the way the VA does, just turn around and uh you might start to like it. Next thing you know, they'll give you something else to crap about. So it's like a revolving door.

Jim Radogna : 1:24

Yeah, yeah, it really is. And lately it's it it's really been a challenge because they're you know, they've been bragging about getting their numbers up and they're they're knocking down the backlog and they're you know processing more claims than ever. But the you know that's that's great. That's that's a great headline, but in in the real world, the quality has just gotten it's crazy. I I've never in all my years, I've never seen poorer quality decisions. I mean, they are just blowing through and denying, you know, and and even if it's a grant, they're they're messing up the rating, they're messing up the effective dates. It's you know, it's it's too bad because they're you know, they're just pushing people too hard. They got among these raiders and VSRs on quotas, and you know, they're putting up these great frontline numbers, but you know, I mean, that's not what veterans want. Veterans want good decisions, they don't want to have to appeal and appeal and appeal, but unfortunately that's not uh that's that's not what the headlines say, but that's what we're seeing here in our office and what all our colleagues are. But you know, it it goes in waves, and hopefully it'll settle back down uh and and get moving.

J Basser: 2:42

Yes.

Jim Radogna : 2:49

Yeah, yeah. I mean it's it's something that um you know Nova members talk about. Um and you know, there'll be people from VA there, and we'll tell them about it. And you know, it's the kind of I I was at the NAC VSO conference um in July in Louisville, and um I'll just say uh um a high-level, very, very high-level VA uh uh leadership was there and he's presenting, and you know, he does the QA, and pretty much most of the VSOs were like, hey, what's with the quality, man? You know, it's like this is crazy. You're denying everybody. And he just, you know, he just didn't answer the question, you know, like politicians do, and it was it was a shame. And I'm I'm glad, you know, I'm I'm glad they brought it up. It's like, hey, you know, brag all you want about how fast you're moving and and knocking down the backlog, but let's let's let's focus on quality. You know, let's focus on taking care of veterans. And what you take care of veterans is you get it right. And you give them what they deserve, and you don't make them wait, and you don't make them appeal over and over and over again. And you know, it's just it's it's very, very frustrating. But anyway, that segues into uh what I want to talk about today, which is effective dates. Effective dates have been a real issue with VA. This is this isn't recent. This is going back years. Uh I'm gonna say probably a good four or five years, it's it's gotten bad. Um got really bad, particularly in the beginning of the PACT Act. Kind of understandable. They, you know, they got overloaded with all these new claims. And the PACT Act as a liberalizing law, it's got a lot of moving parts when it comes to effective dates. So I kind of got that. I'm like, okay, they got to learn this, you know, they had quick training and so on. So they'll get, and they they have gotten a little bit better on that. But um, you know, now, like I was just talking about, the quality of decisions on every level is really bad, and effective dates have actually gotten worse again. Um, what I want to do today is I want to go through uh just some examples of what we see as effective date errors. Some of them are really ridiculous, and some are a little deeper in the weeds, but it's really important that veterans and advocates understand this because the, you know, I I'm not gonna speculate as to why they're making all of these errors on effective dates. But the big picture is that when they do, if they have an advocate, you know, like myself or an attorney, we're gonna catch it and we're gonna fix it, right? But how about all of these veterans that are on their own, right? And and their effective dates wrong, and they don't know what to do about it. They don't, they don't understand. They're like, boy, I thought I was gonna get benefits, you know, I thought I was getting more back pay than that, and they don't know what to do with it, right? So then VA gets to keep the money. Or situations where maybe it's a VSO that doesn't understand. We we do, as you know, Katrina and I, we we we train um VSOs around the country, have been for years. We focus a lot on effective dates with them, we we drill it into them, we give them as much training as we can on this because we need them to understand all the different intricacies of this so they can spot it and they can fix it. Because every time there's a wrong effective date and it doesn't get fixed, it's not fair to the veteran, it's not fair to the surviving spouse. And guess what? You know, VA is keeping their money, and and and and I'm I'm not okay with that, I'll be perfectly honest with you. So, anyway, so let's let's go through some you know common effects. It's not gonna be it's not all of them, and I'm not gonna get too deep in the weeds with some of the you know clear and unmistakable errors and 3.156c and the you know things that you're familiar with, but that's a little deep in the weeds and it'll take too much time. But I'm gonna talk about some of the common ones and how how we attack them, how we get them fixed. Some of them are really easy, some a little bit more difficult. So the first one, and this one just boggles the mind. This happens a lot, and that's where they just veteran will file an intent to file, and within a year they'll file a claim. All right, claim gets granted, and the effective date is the date of the claim. They just completely miss the intent to file. It was like it didn't exist. The good news about that is those are those are pretty easy to fix. You you know, you can just do a high-level review and just let them know, hey, you know, the ITF was filed on this date, please fix it. They'll usually fix it pretty quickly. And with with something about that, is that that's something where it's actually, and you almost never hear these two words out of my mouth at the same time. It's an easy, clear and unmistakable error. Clear and unmistakable errors are in in most instances are pretty darn near impossible. They're extremely difficult to win a clear and unmistakable error. But in a situation like this where they they miss the ITF, even if it was five years ago, you can file a clear and unmistakable error, and you will probably win. You should win with that with no because there's there's no excuse for that. Missing an ITF that's filed within a year is indeed a clear and unmistakable error. So now I don't know how VA did this. So about um a couple of years ago, back actually 2021, there was a case. It was called Military Veterans Advocacy versus the Secretary. And what they decided, it was a Federal Circuit case, and they they said, because when the when the AMA Peels Modernization Act first came out, they said that you can uh an intent to file attaches to a new claim. All right, but it doesn't attach to a supplemental claim. Even though supplemental claims, as you know, can reopen a claim. You can file a supplemental claim. Let's say you had a claim denied 20 years ago. You can now file a supplemental claim and reopen that. So uh Military Veterans Advocacy, NOVA, bunch of law firms all got together. Military Veterans Advocacy, which is um that's the organization that's pretty much um created Blue Water Navy. They they won the copio decision. They're you know the great organization, but they got top billing. Um and you know, these firms were fighting and saying, hey, VA, why isn't why can't we do an intent to file on a supplemental claim rather than a new claim? So Federal Circuit said, you know what, you're right. Absolutely, VA, you have to allow a supplemental claim. I'm sorry, an intent to file if a supplemental claim is filed to reopen a claim, right? So not a supplemental claim for an appeal, but the other supplemental claim where you're reopening an old claim that's been denied more than a year ago. Great. So VA, that was in 2021. In 2023, they finally put this into the M21 manual. All right, it takes them a couple of years, and they interpreted the court decision entirely wrong. And they said, okay, the ITF attaches to a supplemental claim that's used as an appeal. Doesn't really make sense because you have a year to appeal, file a supplemental claim, you don't really need an ITF. So the upside to that is in a case where you file a supplemental claim as an appeal, you can actually now get two years. Like if you file an ITF, you get a whole nother year to file the supplemental claim. So that's the upside. But the downside is the way VA has interpreted this is that if you have a supplemental claim, if you file a supplemental claim in the middle. So let me give you an example. Okay, so you file a claim um for hypertension, whatever, like in January. Um and then the veteran files six months later, files an intent to file because they want to claim some other stuff, right? And they're gathering the medical evidence and every year to do it. Then the hypertension claim ultimately gets granted, VA will assign an effective date of the date of the supplemental claim. Because in their reasoning, you're saying, well, the supplemental claim attached to that ITF, that intent to file it. So instead of giving you the proper effective date of January, because that's when you filed it, they're saying, no, no, it's it's June. It's bizarre and it's at the courts now, and it's probably going to get overturned. But here's the problem with this this is in the M21, which means that no one at the regional office level can correct that, right? So if you go to a higher level review, a decision review officer, they might say, Hey, Jim, you're right. This doesn't make any sense at all. But I can't do anything about it. I am bound by the M21. The M21 tells me I have to do it this way. I can't do anything about it. So the only way for a veteran to get that fixed today is they have to go to the board. And you go to the board, and the board's like, and the board doesn't, you know that the board doesn't care about the M21. The board's like, forget about it. And they'll fix that effective date. But the problem is for some people, if you're not AOD, that might take years to get that decision from the board. So anyway, that's that's kind of a downside. But it is at the courts now, and you know, once the courts finally rule on it, they're gonna overturn it because VA got it entirely wrong. Umother common problem we see. I'm sorry.

J Basser: 13:46

Won't be the first time.

Jim Radogna : 13:48

Yeah. Another one, this is really frustrating. So VA gives into the effective date the date of your latest C and P exam. So you put in a claim or you put in a claim for an increase or whatever, right? A year ago, two years ago. And then you do a C and P exam and they grant. So VA will then give as the effective date, not the original date of claim or the intent of file, but the date of the latest exam. And they particularly do this when it's an increased rating claim, because they'll say, oh, you know what? There's no proof. I mean, that's the only proof that we have that the condition actually got worse. I oh, that's ridiculous because uh, you know, I claimed it a long time ago. So, how we handle those um two different ways. If if there's evidence in the record that the um condition worsened before, then we just do a high-level review and you know we we just point to the evidence. The evidence right here, this has been bad for you know this amount of time. And in a situation where there's not clear evidence in the record, then we'll do a supplemental claim and we'll add some some new medical records, right? So it's uh it's it's a pain because you know, at the end of the day, the there's I can't imagine there's ever been a situation where the date of the exam is the proper effective date. You know, you didn't person just didn't get sick or get worse the day they showed up for the exam, right? I mean, it was long before that, but but they do this pretty regularly. Um here's another one. All right, so you have a veteran that gets granted and they get a low ball rating. Let's say they get a 30% rating, but clearly the evidence shows they're entitled to a 70% rating, right? So within a year, they'll file for an appeal, be it a higher level review or a supplemental claim, and they'll appeal the original rating. So this original rating is wrong. I disagree with this. So it'd be able to do if they grant the increase rating, they will assign the date of the higher level review or the supplemental claim, and they'll say, Well, you're asking for an increased rating. Yeah, and but you're not asking for an increased rating. I'm appealing the lowball rating you engage me. Right? So in that case, we do an HLR. And it's in the M21, the M21 specifically addresses that situation. So we'll point to you know their own M21 provision and say, oh no, no, it m21 tells you don't do it this way. But that is that is one of the most common. We see that very, very frequently where they'll they'll do that. And it could be you know years of of back pay that they're taking away.

J Basser: 16:57

Is it the same person doing all this? Or is it because I know they use the uh you know which we that regional office don't get a reclaim, you know, it rotates again. I guess they pull it off of the as the at the end of the year.

Jim Radogna : 17:14

Yeah, national work you. Yeah, we see it, we see it everywhere. We see it, you know.

J Basser: 17:17

I haven't identified any particular not just one regional office that happens in a lot of different ones.

Jim Radogna : 17:24

Yeah, yeah. A lot of these things that I'm talking about, we're seeing pretty much everywhere. So if you know, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say maybe there's something nefarious going on here. Why is it that they're all making the same dumb mistakes and you know, or and I don't know. I'm I'm I'm just saying, but are they throwing it against the wall and seeing what sticks? And because again, I mean, think about it. Like I say, if this happens and and they're represented, we're gonna fix it, right? But how many veterans aren't represented? And they just give up. So I don't know. Um, another one, reasonably raised claims, or or they call scope of the claim. So the um let's say the um person gets granted for diabetes, right? And in the, you know, as you know, in the initial, when they do the DBQ, they're gonna be looking for um uh diabetic peripheral neuropathy, retinopathy, all all the you know, the common complications. So the um you know, VA will miss that and they'll just they'll grant the diabetes, but they won't grant the complications. So then the veteran, you know, a year or two years later, will put in a claim, say, you know, I've got neuropathy, I've got retinopathy, I've got kidney issues, whatever the case may be, they'll put in a claim. VA will then assign the date of the new claim as the effective date. But that's not what the law says. Is if they had that complication at the effective date of the grant of diabetes, they are entitled to the same effective date. And there's no requirement to put in a claim. Okay, so same thing with like uh if you have back issues and you have ridiculous, those are all within the the scope of the claim. So the proper effective date is back to when the the date of the original claim for diabetes. Right. Or now let's say, for example, um let's say you didn't get neuropathy till a year later, right? Then that would be the proper effective date for the neuropathy, is would be a year later, right? Because it's the date entitlement arose. But but typically by the time these claims get granted, you know, and they have diabetes, they they've already they already had the neuropathy or the retinopathy or whatever the complications were. So that's um in that case, we file a higher level review and you know, sites of the law and sites of the M21 and just kind of argue and say, no, this is wrong. Um this one's my favorite. Individual unemployability. VA seems to think that the effective date for individual employee IU claim is always the date that you file the VA Form 21-8940, which is the application for individual unemployability. They'll they'll automatically assign that date. But uh legally, the proper effective date for individual unemployability is as long as a claim's open, right? So you have a claim stream open, could be for a year, could be for 20 years, and there's evidence in the record of unemployability, the effective date goes back to when there's that first evidence, as long as as long as the claim's still open. It's almost never the effective date is should almost never be the date you file the 8940. Because you know, you've already stopped working, you've you you've got all these issues. You know, by the time you get your paperwork together and and file your 8940, you you've already probably been unemployable for for quite some time. Um probably getting hungry too. So that you know, we'll do an HLR, and sometimes sometimes on that we've got to go to the board. Uh because VA will dig their heels in. But um they do that pretty commonly. And that and that could be, you know, it could be months or it could be many years. There's, you know, we've won cases where you know 10, 15 years earlier effective date based on IU, because they've they've kept the claim alive all that time. Um more TDIU. This one, I really love this one. So you put in a claim for IU, right? And you know, the effective date should be let's say a year ago, two years ago. And you're you know, you work in this, you're fighting this. So, you know, as you know, when you put in a claim for IU, VA is going to do an an exam on every condition you have currently that you're saying cause the IU, and they're gonna they're gonna do a new exam, right? So what will happen sometimes is VA will do they'll do all these exams, right? And they'll come back and say, okay, you we're gonna give you that 70% you had for PTSD, we're gonna raise that up to 100%, right? Um so that's gonna be the effective date is going to be the date of the exam, right? And they'll say IU is moot because you're already 100%, and with IU you get paid at 100%, so it's moot. So we're not gonna adjudicate the IU. But it's not moot because the effective date for the IU might be three years ago. And you're trying to, you know, so you're giving me uh, you know, a hundred percent schedule rating, you know, as of a week ago Thursday when I went to the exam, but IU is not moot. So, you know, in that case we file an HR, and then that is specifically in the M21, they discuss that, and actually says in the M21 that IU is not moot if there's a possibility of an earlier effective date. And what we see a lot of times in the rating decision, they'll say, you know, you're 100% scheduler, IU is moot because there's no possibility of an earlier effective date. They they write that right in there and say, Oh, hold on a second, of course there is. So that's what they do. Okay, increased rating claims, they get these wrong a lot too. Um if you put in an increased rating claim, you can get up to an additional year of effective date. So if you put in an increased rating claim today, your effective date can actually go back a year earlier. This is one of the rare instances where you can actually get an effective date earlier than the date of claim. So the way it works is that is if there's evidence of an increase, evidence of worsening within the file within a year of the the claim for an increase, you can get that. It can't be more than a year, and this is kind of where it gets a little bit tricky. If there's evidence the file the year and a half ago, then you don't get the additional effective date. It's gotta be it's gotta be within a year. And I, you know, they gotta Congress or the court's gotta fix that. But but anyway, I digress. Um so oftentimes what VA will do, they'll almost always assign the effective date is the date that you filed for the increase. And they'll never look back to see if you actually worsened two months ago, three months ago, a year ago. So in those instances, what we'll do, if there's um evidence in the record that it worsened, we'll just do an HLR and point to that. Um if there's not evidence, we'll get evidence and we'll do a supplemental claim and say, hey, it actually, you know, we have some medical records. And that can even be, it can even be lay evidence, it can even be testimony. It doesn't, it's a little tough for them, but it doesn't have to be medical evidence. As long as there's some evidence in the file that, you know, that's credible evidence that the condition worsened prior to the date of claim within a year, that should be the proper effective date. Um okay, DIC, they they and I don't know how they do this, but they mess up DI DIC dates. So as we know, the if uh surviving spouse files or surviving child, whatever, DIC recipient files within a year of the veteran's death, the proper effective date is the first day of the month of the veteran's death. Right. Goes back automatically. VA messes that up, not all the time, but once in a while, they'll just they'll they'll just give the effective days the date of the claim, and they won't go back to the date of death. All right. So that's usually pretty a pretty easy HLR. Um and again, this is kind of like an ITF. They get this wrong and they discover it three years from now. Pretty clear-cut Q claim, clear and unmistakable error. Um so next is NEMAR or Blue Water um Navy claims. So we know there's earlier effective date provisions for NEMAR and Blue Water, and it can go back decades, right? Goes back to typically goes back to the original claim. Believe it or not, VA will will mess that up. More so with Blue Water Navy than NEMER. Um, because they have like they're a little better at NEMER, they've got like these NEMER teams and special ROs handle it, but sometimes with Blue Water Navy, it'll be a Blue Water Navy grant. Um and this would be particularly an instance where let's say you get a you get a grant from the board, right? VA is it's a Blue Water Navy case, and VA's been denying it saying, yeah, we can't locate the ship within the 12 nautical miles. So you go to the board and you keep fighting it. And we've won a lot of cases like with, you know, get like professional dead reckoning and things like that. And the board will then grant. And specifically in the board decision, they'll say, yes, it's conceded that the veteran was within the 12 nautical miles, you know, it's at least as likely as I, you know, that they're in the 12 miles. So after the board decision, it goes back to the regional office, and the regional office sets the effective dates and the and the ratings and so on. The regional office will give an effective date of the latest claim. They won't go back to the first claim like they're supposed to. So even though you won the board decision, you've got to then fight with them again and say, um, you know, hey, so in those will do an HLR and site to the specific law and M21 provisions and so on. But it's frustrating because you know it might have taken years for the board to get this right, and then it goes back to the regional office, and the regional office says, okay, we're just gonna screw you out of some effective date here. Maybe 15 years, maybe 20 years. Um SMC, one of your favorite subjects, right? Effective dates on they will like let's say you you know it's for aid in attendance or loss of use. Very often they will go to, as the effective date, they'll go to the date of the exam. Right? They'll say, oh yeah, okay, so date, you know, date of exam last week, yeah, you need aid in attendance, and here's the date. But That's not the right effective date. SMC is an inferred claim, right? It's like a reasonably raised claim, just like diabetes complications. If there is evidence of your need for aid in attendance or your loss of use, or whatever the case may be for SMC, that is the date is when when there's evidence, and there's always evidence. I mean, by the time a veteran goes out and gets with their doctor and gets a 2680 form and gets all this, they've needed aid in attendance or they've had a loss of use for months or years. But VA will will screw that up. And they'll sometimes they'll they'll even mess up like SMCK cases where your loss of use and they'll just miss it. But they will fail to grant that. Or SMCS, right? Where you have 100% plus 60, that's automatic. And sometimes they'll just miss it. They'll just they won't pay it. So this is another situation. Yeah, this is another situation where this would be a cue, you know, even if you appealed it years later. Because it's you know, it's right in the law, it is an inferred claim, you know. And as far as especially SMCS, I mean, when you hit that 100% for a single disability and a combined 60%, you're entitled to it no matter what. Um PACT Act. They're still doing this, they're not as bad. So PACT Act is a liberalizing law, right? And what that means is you can get um, you know, typically the earliest date you can get is August, effective date is August 10th, 2022, because that's the date that it was signed into law. And they don't have, for veterans, they don't have any provisions for an earlier effective date, like Blue Water Navy did or NEMA. Congress said, yeah, we're for veterans, we are limiting the date to the date of the law. Right. For survivors, DIC recipients, they actually allow for an earlier effective date. Okay, because there's a lot less survivors than there is veterans. So how the liberalizing law works is that you can go back as early as August 10, 2022, or if you file it now and you meet all the right criteria, check the right boxes, your effective date can be a year. It's kind of like an increase, right? Um, it can be a year earlier. If you file it today, let's say you file an ITF today, get it granted um, you know, six months from now. The effective date, there's there's a couple of little um, you gotta meet all the criteria. I'm not gonna get too deep in the weeds. But for the most part, the effective date should be a year ago today. All right, because that's that's part of liberalizing law. So they'll they'll mess that up. Um that's usually we can fix that with an HLR. Um here's another one with with PACT Act is that the there's a lot of raiders since the PACT Act that just got locked into that August 10, 2022 is the effective date. They just like they just decided, you know what, no matter what, we're just gonna give the PAC Act effective date. Okay, and this is a situation where you see like Thailand veterans, Guam veterans, um, Gulf War veterans, where the the PACT Act added these new locations, right? There's a lot of circumstances where Thailand veterans have been fighting this for 10 years, or Guam veterans, so on. So all of a sudden um PACT Act comes into effect and they're presumptively granted now. So VA will grant them and they'll say, you know, your effective date is say, you know, August 10, 2022. Or it could be later, depending on when you claim, because we're almost three years ago that the PACT Act went into effect. But what they're not taking into account is that you've been fighting this and continuously pursuing it for 10 years, like you first put in your Thailand claim. So that becomes a fight because even though they grant the PACT Act allows for presumptive service connection, okay, you're in Thailand, PACT Act changed the law. If you were in Thailand and you have one of the agent orange diseases, you get you get the presumption right. So but what they have to do legally is they also have to consider direct service connection. So they have to go back and look at your original claim, which was before the PACT Act, it wasn't for presumptive because there was no presumption in Thailand. So it was direct service connection. You're trying to prove you're at or near the perimeter of the base, whatever the case might be, you were directly exposed. So these are cases, these cases are a little bit tougher. Um the burden of proof is on the veteran. They've got to kind of go back and just keep hammering away at that claim that they started in the beginning. And the burden of proof is on them to show that, yeah, I was directly exposed. I was near the perimeter, you know, whatever the case may be. Um I have not seen the regional office get these right, so they they have pretty much have to go to the board. I mean, anything's possible, but um these are significant because, you know, again, these can be 10, 15-year-old claims that they've been fighting him and keeping him alive. You know, VA automatically defaults to that no earlier than August 10, 2022. So and you know, I'm I'm I'm not gonna say VA gets these wrong as much as they just don't they don't care. Like they they they should they should look and say, hey, they've continuously pursued this and they should look and see if they can grant. But these are situations where you know they're in a hurry and they're they're just gonna give you the later effective date, and you've got to uh you've got to fight those. But we've won, we've won a number of those. Um most of them are a fight. Some of them have taken a couple of years, but um, and and all at the board. Um, the PAC back issue is that as I just mentioned, for surviving spouses, for the most part, because there's always exceptions, but for the most part, they're entitled to in a really effective aid. And it's it's very much structured. Congress structured it for surviving spouses, DIC recipients, pretty much the same way as Blue Water Navy. So they could go back to, let's say surviving uh um veteran died in 2009, and the surviving spouse filed the DIC claim and they denied it. They're Thailand veteran, right? And now, fast forward to after 2022, with the PACT Act, the once they're granted, the effective date for the survivor would go back to 2009. Even if they didn't continuously pursue it, they could have dropped the claim after the first denial, which is the same as Blue Water. That was the beauty of Blue Water. Whenever you file that first claim, doesn't matter if you appealed it properly or whatever, could have died on the volume for 20 years, you get the earlier effective date. So that's what Congress, it's kind of a compromise because they're looking to save money. Unfortunately, they didn't do that for veterans, but they did for spouses. But very oftentimes, what we'll find is in the situation of a survivor, they don't give them the proper effective pay. They just give them the effective date of the of the new claim. So um usually fix that with with a higher level review.

J Basser: 38:46

Um, that goes good. You must have some good high-level review guys out in the area, I'm telling you.

Jim Radogna : 38:58

You know what? We're really good at what we do. We give them an offer they can't refuse. You know, it's we have the law behind us. We we we you know put them in a situation where the law is the law. We use their rules. Very important. I know a lot of advocates out there are, oh, the M21 is garbage. Don't use let me tell you something. The M21 is golden if you know how to use it, because the M21 is their Bible at the regional office, and that includes higher-level reviewers, they have to use it. So we use that against them. We find provision in the M21 says your raider did it this way, but the M21 right here says they had to do it this way. You have to overturn. And they do. Because, and I've talked to DROs about that, and they're like, hey, I got cover. Because if it's in the M21 and quality control comes after me, they can't ding me. Because I just point to it and say, hey, it's right there. That's what the M21 said to do. So the M21 is is is magical if you use it properly at the regional office level. Once you get to the board, then then you cite the case law and the law and you know things they understand. But um, yeah, we win, we win the vast majority of our uh RHLRs. Um so the next thing is terror, right? So it's part of the PAC Act, toxic exposure risk activity, right? Where um which is direct service connection, you're saying if you were um exposed to any toxins anywhere, anytime, jet fuel, whatever, no matter where you were, you know, then they have to do a medical opinion. You know, once they concede the exposure, they have to do a medical opinion, a CMP medical opinion. And if the doc, you know, or the nurses, yeah, you know, it's at least as likely as not that this cancer was caused by this jet fuel or asbestos or whatever the case may be, you're in it. Didn't happen too frequently. Most of the CMP examiners get it wrong, but we get medical opinions and ultimately win. But they use terror. Like these raiders kind of think everything's a terror, right? Because if it's a terror, then it's limited. The effective date's limited by the PAC Act, right? So just this morning we get a board decision. This gentleman was at Fort Gordon, which we all know well that James was the first one to open up that one. Um, he was in Fort Gordon like James, first filed the claim in 2010, and continuously pursued it. We finally get them to concede herbicide exposure at Fort Gordon. We all know it was there, but we know how tough it is in CONUS. So we win we win that battle. So, yep, he was exposed. So, what effective date do they give? August 10, 2022. Because they said, well, that's a Terra. And you know, if it weren't for Terra, we never could have claimed that. So I didn't even bother. I would write, he's he's AOD. He advanced undocted at the board, went right to the board and just you know, wrote an argument and said, Your Honor, you can surely see how absurd that is. There was no such thing as terror when he first filed this claim, you know, 12 years ago. And they won, you know, that was uh that's what I was telling you about. We actually got a decision in two weeks from the board, which was what's fabulous. But yeah. So he got boards. He gets um his uh effective date for his cancer all the way back to 2010 at 100% plus SMC. So it's a substantial six-figure uh back pay for this guy who absolutely deserves it. Um but yeah, they they like to use that, you know, terror. The effective date is terror, you know. It's you know, terror is a good thing. Terror is a good thing. I I I like terror in that it really opens up the world for toxic exposures, right? It's if you get them to concede terror, now they have to look at if they're exposed to asbestos, if they're exposed to ejecule, if they're exposed to uh solvents, all those things. They, you know, and again, they they most of the time get it wrong. The CMP examiner will get it wrong. But you know, once we get that concession that they're exposed to something, then we get our medical experts and we get our independent medical opinions and we win the case. But it's it's really open, it's opened up the world for veterans. It's a it's it's a good thing. But you know, not when they use it to limit an effective day. So um we'll file an HLR with that. There's also some guidance, it's not in the M21 yet. They haven't put the PACT Act, most of it in the M21, but there's some internal guidance. It's um uh they publish, and I can get it off of VBMS, the um PACT Act uh SOP is a standard operator procedure. So I have all those documents and um I I use that to uh to get that. Occasionally that has to go to the board, um, like in in this instance with a guy at Fort Gordon. Um but those those are definitely winnable. Um incorrect dates of supplemental claims, and again, this is it's mind-boggling. Oftentimes you'll continuously pursue a claim, and they'll give the effective date of the last. So let's say you know you did an HLR and then you did a supplemental claim, you've been fighting this for a couple years. They'll give the effective date of the supplemental claim instead of the original date of claim that's been continuously pursued. And you know, and their rationale is well, all you you know the supplemental claim is to re- so you wanted to reopen the claim by using the supplement. No, he didn't. It's just it's been continuously pursued, using the supplemental claim to appeal it. So, you know, that usually can get that fixed with an HLR, but you know, they try that on. Um and those are the most common. They're you know, again, there's there's more, there's probably double that, but these are the most common, pretty straightforward ones um that they're just they they just miss. And um it's really honestly, guys, it it's to the point where when we get a grant, Katrina and I are are are shocked nowadays if the effective date's right. It's like we're you know, I'll look at it, I'll you know, get it get off email, say, okay, we got a grant, and I'll look at the effective date, and I'll look in our database, and I'll say, I mean, you gotta look at this. I I it it looks like they got it right. She's like, no way. So she'll go over it too. It's like we're like, I mean, it's it's gotten to that point. It's it's unfortunate, is that they almost, at least in our practice, they almost never get the effective date right the first time. So it's crazy. And it, you know, this is important. It's important because you know, they're not gonna they're not gonna get that past us. They're not gonna get it past, you know, most attorneys. Um definitely slip it past the veteran or or survivor. Um you know, and they might pass you know get it past a VSO that's you know it's kind of new at the game and and doesn't hasn't been trained by us because we don't train them all.

J Basser: 47:15

Um that affects your bottom line, Gim.

Jim Radogna : 47:25

It really does, you know, and sometimes sometimes it's a couple of months, but sometimes a couple of years, sometimes it's a couple decades. But at the end of the day, you know, even if it's a month, that's the veteran's money. That's their survivor's money. VA doesn't have the right to keep it from them. You know, and again, I don't, you know, they're maybe they're rushing. Um and they talk about training issues. Well, you know, sometimes those are training issues, but you know, it's something as simple as missing an ITF. You know, you can train a monkey to do that. That's that's easy. You know, some of this stuff is like this Packet stuff, it's it's deep in the weeds, and and they've got to learn. I I get that. But a lot of these are just really, they're really silly. You know, it's they don't make any sense. But uh we keep fighting a good fight. Get them, get them all the money they deserve.

J Basser: 48:25

Let me make a little announcement real quick. This announcement goes out to all you do-it-yourselfers. Some stuff I've been reading lately online, and some stuff that people are doing they do their own claims and their own appeals. I would highly recommend you guys find an accredited VSO or an agent to handle your appeal. If not, you're gonna have a long wait.

unknown: 48:55

Yeah.

Jim Radogna : 48:56

I agree. And and you know, and and question everything. If you feel like if you get a grant, or you know, your VSO gives you a grant, and you feel like, you know what? I I I thought, I thought I was entitled to earlier than that, I thought I was entitled to more back pay, question it. You know, absolutely, absolutely question it. Maybe, maybe yes, maybe no, but you know, don't take VA's word for it. You know, same thing with ratings. If you get what you feel like is a low ball rating, question it. You know, maybe appeal it. It's um and that's where VSOs and accredited reps can help. It's um, you know, it is as much as we talk about these effective data errors, we see you know almost as many rating errors where they just they're giving you less of a rating than than you're you you you deserve. And it's uh you know, nothing wrong, nothing wrong with doing it yourself. There is there's a lot of really good information out there. Um some of the YouTube channels, some are really bad, but some are really good. There's you know, some of there's some law firms out there, um colleagues of ours that that put out great content. You know, they they do regular Q ⁇ A's and they do, you know, there's you get on there and and you know have professional attorneys explain to you how to do this yourself, and there's nothing wrong with that. But the um, you know, question everything. It's there's there's so many nuances, there's so many ins and outs. And for whatever reason, VA is making a lot of errors, and and and these errors can be costly. You know, a lot of times people think, well, you know what? I've been fighting this for a while, I finally got a grant. I'm I'm not gonna rock the boat. I I wish I got more, but I'm not, you know. Listen.

J Basser: 50:59

That's the most popular uh that's the most popular three-letter acronym right now you ever see is DTA, DTA, DTA. I'm seeing four and five a day.

Jim Radogna : 51:11

Yeah, yeah. It's it it it's it's absolutely crazy. But um yeah, I'm hoping, you know, as I said, after the it it really the issue really accelerated during the PACT Act, especially in the beginning, and and I get that again, there's there's some ins and outs, and you know, they're under pressure, and they're well over a million claims, and they're working really hard. So I understand. Um it got a little bit better, but in these last you know, probably I don't know, three, four months when they really started putting their foot on the gas about the backlog and you know processing more claims than ever. They reinstituted mandatory overtime. Um and then you know the situation is also there's been a lot of attrition at VA. Um a lot of there's a lot of you know really good people have left. They've they've taken the early retirement. Um the yeah, and a lot of you know, I from what I understand, not surprisingly, there's there's some morale issues going on within the agency, um, the whole Doge and thing. So a lot of them have left, and and a lot of um, you know, law firms, veterans' law firms and stuff like that are you know, I I know of personally are are scooping up. They are hiring, they're in a hiring chair. You work for VA, come work for me. You know, not us, we're your title office, but these big law firms are come work for me because I'm gonna pay you more, I'm gonna treat you right, and you are you know your stuff because think about it. If a if a law firm has got to hire, like let's say we're gonna hire a case manager or something like that, all right? Think about what the training it would take to get somebody up to speed, as complicated as Veterans Law is, you know, it would just take a long time. And it's very expensive too to train people. So you you know, you hire somebody, and it might take you six months before you can get them to manage your cases, right? Not if they're a former raider or a former VSR or a former drown the system. Now, you you know, you you you might have to re-educate them on their thought process. So, you know, some VA employees are um, you know, don't have the best. Yeah, yeah, exactly. You know, yeah, you've got to look at it from a different perspective. But that's not hard to do. But but the thing is they they know, and um, and it there's a lot of you know, there's a lot of really good VA employees. And I think, you know, many of them are veterans. I honestly think there's a far more really good VA employees than not. But what I've been learning over the years is that they are, the system is really difficult at the regional office level because they have this, you know, quality control teams are up their tail, right? And they're and they're saying, nope, you got that wrong, you shouldn't have granted, you granted too much. They live in abject fear of getting a ding, getting a quality ding. So they they become hyper-conservative. And they're like, yeah, I'd like to grant this. You know, I think the veteran deserves this, but I'm not gonna do it because I'm gonna get a ding from quality. Because I I just got you know, I got my butt handed to me last week by QRT, and I don't want another one this month. I'm hearing that in discussions with these, and it's it's something in the system they need to fix, you know. And that's why the it's one of the many reasons why, you know, the board is so much better. You know, not only it's it's attorneys, judges, they understand the law, but they don't they don't have that. They don't have they get to make independent decisions, right? They don't have the pressure. They make decisions and and there's no one second guessing them. Um and I get it, it's a you know, it's a huge organization. They got you know 470 or maybe less than that now, but you know, almost a half a million employees, and they have to have controls and they have to have quality, and and and I get all that, but it's it really does create problems. Um, and then and the rushing, too. I mean, these these mistakes. Because you know, sometimes there'll be like a really dumb mistake. I'll get on Teams and I'll reach out to the rater that made the decision and nicely say, hey, I think you missed this. Can you fix this so we don't have to do an appeal? And they're usually they're very they're very how hey, sorry about that. I was in a rush, thank you so much. I'll fix it right away. I they'll do that for you for the most part, because they, you know, they want to get it right too. They they they you know, a lot of them, most of them, they want to they want to get it right. And sometimes they're just they rushed and they missed it, and you know, just ask them nicely to to if it's something really simple, like an ITF. You know, sometimes I'll reach out and say, hey, you know, respectfully you missed the ITF. Can you can you fix it? Oh, sorry about that. Yeah, it's and and they do it right away. So um, you know, because they don't want to, and I don't know, I I've never heard that if you um if you grant uh or or if you deny too much that quality team gets on you. I know if you grant too much they do. So I I I don't I don't know that for sure though.

J Basser: 57:17

What what would be the difference to you? Let's say you get gig for quality, right? Which is my background. Or you lose to BBH.

Jim Radogna : 57:24

Do you get gig for that? No, and that's and that's the shame of it. When they started the AMA, part of the AMA, there's supposed to be a feedback loop. And this was between the board and the regional office. And the board is supposed to do this feedback loop and say, listen, you know, because the board for years is saying we are seeing so many ridiculous cases that we shouldn't waste our time. We're backlogged because you're you're getting wrong. At the regional office, you're getting wrong really simple things that you shouldn't be. You should know better. These aren't complicated legal issues. So there's supposed to be a feedback loop where they would constantly feedback and show the regional office so their leadership could get in and say, hey, we need more training on these issues. We're consistently making dumb mistakes here, right? That never happened for whatever reason. Um so there is no feedback that way. Now, at the at the BVA, they, you know, we know the court, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. There, you know, that the court will constantly, you know, you deny at the board and it goes to the court, you know, over 80% of the time it goes back to BVA and they say, try again. That is professionally embarrassing if you're an attorney and a judge, where another judge says, hey, you got this wrong. So that keeps them honest, too. They're like, okay, we're gonna get this right, because they do, they do have that accountability. Unfortunately, at the uh at the regional office level, they they really don't. I mean, it's like, okay, you deny, we don't like it, appeal it. Go on. I'm not seeing them get in any kind of trouble from their leadership because they deny too much, or they or they mess up effective dates, or they mess up ratings. I I may be wrong, you know, but it but I'm not seeing it. I I know if they if if they give too much, they get in trouble. Unquestionably.

J Basser: 59:29

You guys know what happens when you're having fun? Time absolutely flies. It does. We're really out of time. We still got some important left. Jim, as usual, man, thanks for coming on. I'm pretty sure a whole lot of people have learned something tonight. But I'm pretty sure agents have learned stuff too.

Beri: 59:52

Yeah, I just want to expand on you know what's going on. You're exactly right with those quotas of their personnel. The people that took the early out, they're still getting paid until the end of September. So they can't pay back there. So in October, you're gonna have all these, they're gonna start the hiring process, but we may be in this situation with the missing stuff and having to meet those quotas for how long is it gonna take to train these new people?

Jim Radogna : 1:00:30

Yeah. Well, what I'm hoping is that you know everything comes home to roost. At some point, it's gonna come out that this whole kill the backlog, move faster is backfires. Year from now, two years from now. We're gonna have the same VA secretary for next three and a half years, right? So at some point, I'm hoping that it's like, you know, it becomes public knowledge that, oh my God, VA is a train wreck. They are wrongfully denying they're doing all of these extra claims and they're screwing them up. You know, and at some point, maybe there'll be some pressure on VA to say, okay, now we need to slow down and we need to train our people better, and we need to get this right, because it's a really bad look if you know veterans, the veteran community out there are saying VA is a mess because they're rushing and they're screwing veterans. Yep. Yeah, I I believe in Santa Claus. I'm hoping I'm hoping that happens. But we'll we'll see.

J Basser: 1:01:44

Man, thanks for coming on. We'll do this again soon. Uh absolutely. Always always a pleasure. Thank you. Tell the Mrs. Hello from everybody.

Jim Radogna : 1:01:53

I certainly will.

J Basser: 1:01:55

Now that she's down under the clouds. Well, better better keep her keep her busy for a while, man. She gets too she's moving too many times hiking and climbing mountains and stuff.

Jim Radogna : 1:02:07

Yeah, yeah, she's uh she's something. That's awesome.

J Basser: 1:02:13

I'm glad you guys stay in shape that way. Well, listen, guys, we do appreciate you watching. Uh, we'll be back again next week. We'll have another guest on. And uh, I think next week's guest is another attorney out of DC. Um advertiser appear at the end of the week. But this is John. We'll be happy to gym Bardonia, and very clearly we'll be shutting it down for now. Thanks, everybody.

Jim Radogna : 1:02:36

Thanks, guys. Great seeing you.