:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/T56ADX64ANDYNP5MWRKCULXRZA.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/QBYJTGYCQBHSVITAL32RAO7HAA.jpg)
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/YVREBMCGTNFNTI6PSBKVQDR7CU.jpg)
Single Judge Application; pain; functional loss; If pain causes functional loss, it “must be rated at the same level as if that functional loss were caused by some other factor.” Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 32, 37, (2011); For an examination to adequately capture functional loss, the examiner must opine whether pain could significantly limit functional ability and, if feasible, portray that opinion “‘in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to pain on use or during flare-ups.’” Sharp, 29 Vet.App. at 32 (quoting Deluca v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 202, 206 (1995));
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-6885BILLY MOSLEY, APPELLANT,V.DENIS MCDONOUGH,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before TOTH, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this ...
![Panel Application; Otero-Castro v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 375, 380 (2002) (“The basic principles that apply to construing statutes apply equally to construing regulations.”). If it is not clear, “the Court may look to other sources, including the history and purpose of the regulation.” Bailey v. Wilkie, 33 Vet.App. 188, 194 (2021); see Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2415 (explaining that to exhaust the traditional tools of regulatory construction, “a court must ‘carefully consider[]’ the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation” (quoting Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 n.9 (1984))). “[D]eference [to the Agency] can arise only if a regulation is genuinely ambiguous[,] . . . after a court has resorted to all the standard tools of interpretation.” Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2414;](https://www.hadit.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/how-to-decide-when-to-start-a-new-website.jpg)
![Single Judge Application; section 311 meant in 1981; CUE; presumption of soundness; The appellant argues that the Board erred in its determination that no CUE existed in the 1981 RO decision. Specifically, he contends that Wagner is an authoritative statement of what section 311 meant at the time of the 1981 RO decision. Appellant’s Brief (Br.) at 6. The Court agrees with the appellant that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of section 1111 in Wagner is an authoritative statement of what that statute has meant since the date of enactment in 1958. See Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298, 312-13 (1994) (“A judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction.”); Patrick v. Shinseki, 668 F.3d at 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We made clear . . . , that ‘[u]nlike changes in regulations and statutes, which are prospective, our interpretation of a statute is retrospective in that it explains what the statute has meant since the date of enactment.’” (quoting Patrick v. Nicholson, 242 F. App’x 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(remanding for further consideration of CUE request using the correct standard articulated in Wagner and directing remand to Board, if necessary, to determine whether the Secretary has rebutted the presumption of soundness by providing clear and unmistakable evidence that the presumption has been rebutted))); see also Jordan v. Nicholson, 401 F.3d 1296, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the appellant’s CUE request challenges the validity of a regulation but does not question the correct legal standard under the statute, and that “Wagner governs that issue”). Thus, the Court agrees with the appellant that the Board erred when it concluded that he could not challenge the correct legal standard that applies under section 1111 in the CUE context.;](https://hadit.com/wp-content/uploads/tshirt-Hadit.com-Business-Card-Back-3-1024x585.png)
