granted on appeal or awarded on the basis of a claim reopened after a denial by the [BVA] or the lump[-]sum payment which represents the total amount of recurring cash payments which accrued between the effective date of the award, as determined by applicable laws and regulations, and the date of the grant of the benefit by the [VARO], the [BVA], or an appellate court. (i) When the benefit granted on appeal ... is service connection for a disability, the “past-due benefits” will be based on the initial disability rating assigned by the [VARO] following the award of service connection. The sum will equal the payments from the effective date of the award to the date of the initial disability rating decision. (Emphasis added.); see also Aronson v. Derwinski, 8 Vet.App. 162, 168 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Section 20.609(h)(3)(i) also provides that if
holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife holding that the secretary had no discretion under the language of 38 cfr  20609h1 to deny payment where the fee agreement met the regulatory requirements holding that the plaintiffs had not offered sufficient evidence that their claims met the requirements of rule 23a holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds