An award made based all or in part on the records identified by paragraph (c)(1) of this section is effective on the date entitlement arose or the date Veterans Affairs received the previously decided claim, whichever is later, or such other date as may be authorized by the provisions of this part applicable to the previously decided claim.
The VA hates 3.156(c). In fact, they commonly “overlook” this basis for an earlier effective date when Veterans find new military service records or military treatment service records.
2.) Show that the VA should have granted an earlier claim date based on the “implicit denial” doctrine.
The VA doesn’t have to go digging through your C-file to find every viable claim.
However, if a claim is “reasonably raised” by the record, then the VA’s failure to address it could be considered an “implicit denial” of that claim.
Here’s how that might work.
A Vietnam era Veteran who served at NKP in Thailand files a claim for service-connection due to Agent Orange exposure.
He tells the VA that he has Diabetes Mellitus Type II.
To confirm the diagnosis of Diabetes, the VA receives medical records from the Veteran’s treating physician.
The treating physician’s records are replete with diagnoses of an ischemic heart disease.
However, in the ratings decision, the VA fails to address the ischemic heart disease, even while granting Service-Connection for the Diabetes based on Agent Orange Exposure.
A claim like this might be “reasonably raised” by the record. In fact this scenario occurs very frequently.
While granting one claim, the VA turns a blind eye to a fairly obvious claim in the record that the Veteran may or may not have specifically asked for. Most commonly this occurs with secondary conditions – conditions that the medical record clearly indicates are caused by the service-connected condition.
This happens because the bureaucrats deciding VA claims have little or no medical knowledge or training, and are punished for thinking outside the box.
The BVA and the CAVC are going to look at a couple factors in analyzing the implicit denial doctrine: relatedness of the claims, the timing of the claims, whether the ratings decision (or other adjudication of the Veterans Benefits claim) refers to the condition in a way that suggests it was denied, and whether the Veteran was represented or acting pro-se.
Remember, there are only 2 paths to an Earlier Effective Date – a CUE claim (or a Motion to Revise the Effective Date based on Clear and Unmistakeable Error), and as a legal basis in a current and pending appeal.