Veterans Day Message from President Trump

Veterans Day Message from President Trump

August 1, 2022
Navajo Code Talker Samuel Sandoval dies

Navajo Code Talker Samuel Sandoval dies

August 1, 2022
#VeteranOfTheDay Marine Corps Veteran Victor “Brute” Harold Krulak

#VeteranOfTheDay Marine Corps Veteran Victor “Brute” Harold Krulak

August 1, 2022
Trump supporters attempt world record boat parade near Clearwater Beach

Trump supporters attempt world record boat parade near Clearwater Beach

August 1, 2022
Veteran honored for once-secret role in WWII ‘Ghost Army’

Veteran honored for once-secret role in WWII ‘Ghost Army’

August 1, 2022
Helping a Fellow Vet with Disability Claim : Veterans

Helping a Fellow Vet with Disability Claim : Veterans

July 31, 2022
Table Tennis 1. European Championship1995 Vienna (Wien)Veterans Orlovwki Dvoracek Tischtennis

Table Tennis 1. European Championship1995 Vienna (Wien)Veterans Orlovwki Dvoracek Tischtennis

July 31, 2022
Low-Cost Tech Shaping Modern Battlefield > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News

Low-Cost Tech Shaping Modern Battlefield > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News

July 31, 2022
The Army won’t lower its standards again to meet recruitment goals

The Army won’t lower its standards again to meet recruitment goals

July 31, 2022
Coast Guard veteran held without bail in ID theft mystery

Coast Guard veteran held without bail in ID theft mystery

July 31, 2022
British Normandy Memorial opens on D-Day anniversary

British Normandy Memorial opens on D-Day anniversary

July 31, 2022
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall Stories

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall Stories

July 31, 2022
Thursday, April 25, 2024
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result

Tag: USC

Single Judge Application; reason and bases; Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001); failure discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant; Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994); the Board cannot “evade [its] statutory responsibility [to state the reasons or bases for its conclusions] merely by adopting [a medical opinion] as its own” where the medical opinion “fails to discuss all the evidence which appears to support [the] appellant’s position.” Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994). Gabrielson does not require that a medical opinion discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant, only that the Board, in relying on an opinion that does not do so, discuss any additional favorable evidence to comply with its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. See id.; 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see also Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001) (holding that, although the Board must consider all of the evidence of record, “a discussion of all evidence is not required when . . . the Board has supported its decision with thorough reasons or bases regarding the relevant evidence”);

Single Judge Application; reason and bases; Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001); failure discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant; Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994); the Board cannot “evade [its] statutory responsibility [to state the reasons or bases for its conclusions] merely by adopting [a medical opinion] as its own” where the medical opinion “fails to discuss all the evidence which appears to support [the] appellant’s position.” Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994). Gabrielson does not require that a medical opinion discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant, only that the Board, in relying on an opinion that does not do so, discuss any additional favorable evidence to comply with its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. See id.; 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see also Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001) (holding that, although the Board must consider all of the evidence of record, “a discussion of all evidence is not required when . . . the Board has supported its decision with thorough reasons or bases regarding the relevant evidence”);

by The Editor
October 30, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; reason and bases; Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001); failure discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant; Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. ...

FedCir; Regents is an application of the APA’s “arbitrary, capricious” standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and this case is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A), which uses the same “arbitrary, capricious” language; we have used APA jurisprudence in applying the Title 38 provision. See Euzebio v. McDonough, 989 F.3d 1305, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“The Veterans Court must also review Board and VA determinations for ‘abuse of discretion’ and ‘arbitrary [and] capricious’ decision making, including whether the Board or VA[] entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem . . . .” (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A) and State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43)); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 432 n.2 (2011) (“[T]he Veterans Court’s scope of review, § 7261, is similar to that of an Article III court reviewing agency action under the [APA] . . . .”); Whether an agency has failed to address an important aspect of a problem, and is arbitrary and capricious for that reason, can turn on the specific statutes and regulations that govern the agency, see Oregon Natural Re-sources Council v. Thomas, 92 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir.1996), but that does not distinguish 38 U.S.C. § 7261 from 5 U.S.C. § 706;

FedCir; Regents is an application of the APA’s “arbitrary, capricious” standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and this case is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A), which uses the same “arbitrary, capricious” language; we have used APA jurisprudence in applying the Title 38 provision. See Euzebio v. McDonough, 989 F.3d 1305, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“The Veterans Court must also review Board and VA determinations for ‘abuse of discretion’ and ‘arbitrary [and] capricious’ decision making, including whether the Board or VA[] entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem . . . .” (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A) and State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43)); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 432 n.2 (2011) (“[T]he Veterans Court’s scope of review, § 7261, is similar to that of an Article III court reviewing agency action under the [APA] . . . .”); Whether an agency has failed to address an important aspect of a problem, and is arbitrary and capricious for that reason, can turn on the specific statutes and regulations that govern the agency, see Oregon Natural Re-sources Council v. Thomas, 92 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir.1996), but that does not distinguish 38 U.S.C. § 7261 from 5 U.S.C. § 706;

by The Editor
October 26, 2021
0

FedCir; Regents is an application of the APA’s “arbitrary, capricious” standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and this case is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A), which uses ...

Single Judge Application; The Board cannot avoid adjudicating an issue before it, here the proper rating, simply because it may also arise in a different claim. See Rice, 22 Vet.App. at 450-54 (clarifying that TDIU is not a “claim” but an entitlement to a total disability rating when certain qualifications are met); As appellant notes, the Board’s failure to address entitlement to TDIU based solely on the veteran’s migraine headaches was prejudicial because that entitlement may lead to eligibility for SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s). See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 280, 293 (2008) (“[S]ection 1114(s) does not limit ‘a service-connected disability rated as total’ to only a schedular rating of 100%, and the Secretary’s current regulation permits a [total disability rating based on individual unemployability] based on a single disability to satisfy the statutory requirement of a total rating.” (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s))); And VA has had a long-standing policy of considering SMC where it may apply, even if not explicitly raised. See Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 118, 121 (1991);

Single Judge Application; The Board cannot avoid adjudicating an issue before it, here the proper rating, simply because it may also arise in a different claim. See Rice, 22 Vet.App. at 450-54 (clarifying that TDIU is not a “claim” but an entitlement to a total disability rating when certain qualifications are met); As appellant notes, the Board’s failure to address entitlement to TDIU based solely on the veteran’s migraine headaches was prejudicial because that entitlement may lead to eligibility for SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s). See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 280, 293 (2008) (“[S]ection 1114(s) does not limit ‘a service-connected disability rated as total’ to only a schedular rating of 100%, and the Secretary’s current regulation permits a [total disability rating based on individual unemployability] based on a single disability to satisfy the statutory requirement of a total rating.” (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s))); And VA has had a long-standing policy of considering SMC where it may apply, even if not explicitly raised. See Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 118, 121 (1991);

by The Editor
October 21, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; The Board cannot avoid adjudicating an issue before it, here the proper rating, simply because it may also arise in a different claim. See Rice, 22 ...

Single Judge Application; Tadlock remand from Federal Circuit; overlapping signs or symptoms; Veterans of the Gulf War can establish entitlement to service connection on a presumptive basis for “a qualifying chronic disability” that arises during service or to a compensable degree before December 31, 2026. 38 U.S.C. § 1117; 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(1)(i) (2021). A “qualifying chronic disability” is one that results from either an “undiagnosed illness” or a “medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness [(MUCMI)] that is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2)(i)(A)-(B). A MUCMI, inturn, is defined as “a diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or etiology, that is characterized by overlapping symptoms and signs and has features such as fatigue, pain, disability out of proportion to physical findings, and inconsistent demonstration of laboratory abnormalities.” Id. § 3.317(a)(2)(ii);

Single Judge Application; Tadlock remand from Federal Circuit; overlapping signs or symptoms; Veterans of the Gulf War can establish entitlement to service connection on a presumptive basis for “a qualifying chronic disability” that arises during service or to a compensable degree before December 31, 2026. 38 U.S.C. § 1117; 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(1)(i) (2021). A “qualifying chronic disability” is one that results from either an “undiagnosed illness” or a “medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness [(MUCMI)] that is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2)(i)(A)-(B). A MUCMI, inturn, is defined as “a diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or etiology, that is characterized by overlapping symptoms and signs and has features such as fatigue, pain, disability out of proportion to physical findings, and inconsistent demonstration of laboratory abnormalities.” Id. § 3.317(a)(2)(ii);

by The Editor
October 14, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; Tadlock remand from Federal Circuit; overlapping signs or symptoms; Veterans of the Gulf War can establish entitlement to service connection on a presumptive basis for “a ...

October 8, 2021); criminal judgment; total disability rating; 38 U.S.C. § 5313(c); 38 C.F.R. § 3.341(b); The term “correctional facility” cannot encompass a hospital that treats civil patients, and a hospital cannot be a correctional facility for some patients and not others;

October 8, 2021); criminal judgment; total disability rating; 38 U.S.C. § 5313(c); 38 C.F.R. § 3.341(b); The term “correctional facility” cannot encompass a hospital that treats civil patients, and a hospital cannot be a correctional facility for some patients and not others;

by The Editor
October 9, 2021
0

Philbrook v. McDonough, No. 2020-2233 (Decided: October 8, 2021); criminal judgment; total disability rating; 38 U.S.C. § 5313(c); 38 C.F.R. § 3.341(b); The term “correctional facility” cannot encompass a ...

Single Judge Application; hearing loss effective date; Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 219 (2015); in Swain v. McDonald the Court explained that 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 does not govern the effective date for hearing loss ratings. See 27 Vet.App. at 224-25. The Court held that the effective date for hearing loss may be earlier than the date of an audiometric test that satisfies the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, and that, “unless otherwise specifically noted in the statute or regulation, [38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3)] and [38 C.F.R.] § 3.400 govern the effective date for disability benefits claims.” Id. at 225. The Board noted some of Mr. Garcia’s statements about his worsening hearing loss before 2019, but the Board denied entitlement to a compensable rating before June 11, 2019, seemingly because the record did not contain any other “audiometric testing results during this portion of the appeal period which comply with 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 for rating purposes.” R. at 11.; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

Single Judge Application; hearing loss effective date; Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 219 (2015); in Swain v. McDonald the Court explained that 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 does not govern the effective date for hearing loss ratings. See 27 Vet.App. at 224-25. The Court held that the effective date for hearing loss may be earlier than the date of an audiometric test that satisfies the criteria under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, and that, “unless otherwise specifically noted in the statute or regulation, [38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3)] and [38 C.F.R.] § 3.400 govern the effective date for disability benefits claims.” Id. at 225. The Board noted some of Mr. Garcia’s statements about his worsening hearing loss before 2019, but the Board denied entitlement to a compensable rating before June 11, 2019, seemingly because the record did not contain any other “audiometric testing results during this portion of the appeal period which comply with 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 for rating purposes.” R. at 11.; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

by The Editor
October 6, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; hearing loss effective date; Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 219 (2015); in Swain v. McDonald the Court explained that 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 does not govern ...

“[P]rivate medical evidence since the initial exam that indicates the veteran’s medical history [] include[s] cold injury residuals [is] based upon his verbal history—not the evidence of record.” R. at 3583. There is no doubt that the RO’s distinction between the “evidence of record” and the veteran’s own statements was completely misleading at best. See 38 U.S.C.§ 5107(b) (requiring the Secretary to “consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case”); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting that VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim to disability or death benefits); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that””lay evidence is one type of evidence that must be considered, if submitted, when a veteran’s claim seeks disability benefits” and holding that, in certain situations, “competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself” to establish entitlement to such benefits). The language used in the request indicates that the veteran’s own statements are not “evidence of record” and would require at least corroboration in service medical records to be credible and probative. That is contrary to Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1335 (finding improper the Board’s determination that ‘lay statements lacked credibility merely because they were not corroborated by contemporaneous [SMRs]”).; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

“[P]rivate medical evidence since the initial exam that indicates the veteran’s medical history [] include[s] cold injury residuals [is] based upon his verbal history—not the evidence of record.” R. at 3583. There is no doubt that the RO’s distinction between the “evidence of record” and the veteran’s own statements was completely misleading at best. See 38 U.S.C.§ 5107(b) (requiring the Secretary to “consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case”); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting that VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim to disability or death benefits); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that””lay evidence is one type of evidence that must be considered, if submitted, when a veteran’s claim seeks disability benefits” and holding that, in certain situations, “competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself” to establish entitlement to such benefits). The language used in the request indicates that the veteran’s own statements are not “evidence of record” and would require at least corroboration in service medical records to be credible and probative. That is contrary to Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1335 (finding improper the Board’s determination that ‘lay statements lacked credibility merely because they were not corroborated by contemporaneous [SMRs]”).; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

by The Editor
October 5, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); The RO’s request distinguished between the veteran’s statements and the other evidence of record: “rivate medical ...

Single Judge Application; a MUCMI is “a diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or etiology[] that is characterized by overlapping symptoms and signs and has features such as fatigue, pain, disability out of proportion to physical findings, and inconsistent demonstration of laboratory abnormalities.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2)(ii). “Under the proper interpretation of the law, an illness is a MUCMI where either the etiology or pathophysiology of the illness is inconclusive.” Stewart v. Wilkie, 30 Vet.App. 383, 390 (2018); “Conversely, a multisymptom illness is not a MUCMI where both the etiology and the pathophysiology of the illness are partially understood.” Id.; “[W]hether an illness is ‘defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms’ . . . is a question of fact delegated to the VA . . . for consideration in the first instance.” Tadlock, 5 F.4th at 1338 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(2)(B)); » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

Single Judge Application; a MUCMI is “a diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or etiology[] that is characterized by overlapping symptoms and signs and has features such as fatigue, pain, disability out of proportion to physical findings, and inconsistent demonstration of laboratory abnormalities.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2)(ii). “Under the proper interpretation of the law, an illness is a MUCMI where either the etiology or pathophysiology of the illness is inconclusive.” Stewart v. Wilkie, 30 Vet.App. 383, 390 (2018); “Conversely, a multisymptom illness is not a MUCMI where both the etiology and the pathophysiology of the illness are partially understood.” Id.; “[W]hether an illness is ‘defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms’ . . . is a question of fact delegated to the VA . . . for consideration in the first instance.” Tadlock, 5 F.4th at 1338 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(2)(B)); » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

by The Editor
September 30, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; a MUCMI is “a diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or etiology[] that is characterized by overlapping symptoms and signs and has features such as fatigue, pain, ...

Single Judge Application; George v. McDonough, 991 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 2021) confirming that the law as it was understood at the time did not require VA to rebut the presumption of sound condition with clear and unmistakable evidence that the condition was not aggravated by service; 1970 presumption of sound condition; In 1970, VA’s implementing regulation did not require clear and unmistakable evidence of lack of aggravation by service for rebuttal. See 38 C.F.R. §3.304(b) (1970); Instead, if the presumption of sound condition applied, the burden fell on VA to rebut the presumption with clear and unmistakable evidence that an injury or disease that manifested in service preexisted service. See George, 991 F.3d at 1229-30 (noting that VA’s 1970 version of the regulation, permitting VA to rebut the presumption of soundness with only clear and unmistakable evidence that the disorder preexisted service, prevailed until 2003); 38 U.S.C. § 311 (1970) (current version § 1111); » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

Single Judge Application; George v. McDonough, 991 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 2021) confirming that the law as it was understood at the time did not require VA to rebut the presumption of sound condition with clear and unmistakable evidence that the condition was not aggravated by service; 1970 presumption of sound condition; In 1970, VA’s implementing regulation did not require clear and unmistakable evidence of lack of aggravation by service for rebuttal. See 38 C.F.R. §3.304(b) (1970); Instead, if the presumption of sound condition applied, the burden fell on VA to rebut the presumption with clear and unmistakable evidence that an injury or disease that manifested in service preexisted service. See George, 991 F.3d at 1229-30 (noting that VA’s 1970 version of the regulation, permitting VA to rebut the presumption of soundness with only clear and unmistakable evidence that the disorder preexisted service, prevailed until 2003); 38 U.S.C. § 311 (1970) (current version § 1111); » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

by The Editor
September 28, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; George v. McDonough, 991 F.3d 1227, 1229-30 (Fed. Cir. 2021) confirming that the law as it was understood at the time did not require VA to rebut ...

Arellano v. McDonough, No. 2020-1073(Decided: June 17, 2021, PER CURIAM); equitable tolling with respect to 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1); Andrews v. Principi, 351 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2003), which held that principles of equitable tolling are not applicable to the time period in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1);

Arellano v. McDonough, No. 2020-1073(Decided: June 17, 2021, PER CURIAM); equitable tolling with respect to 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1); Andrews v. Principi, 351 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2003), which held that principles of equitable tolling are not applicable to the time period in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1);

by The Editor
June 26, 2021
0

Arellano v. McDonough, No. 2020-1073(Decided: June 17, 2021, PER CURIAM); equitable tolling with respect to 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1); Andrews v. Principi, 351 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2003), which held ...

Page 1 of 2 1 2
  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
No Result
View All Result

198 Veterans News - Copyright AllRights Reserved.