8 results for 'cat:"Health Care" AND cat:"Veterans" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
J. Toth finds the Board of Veterans Appeals improperly refused to consider the Navy veteran's notice of disagreement and request for extension. The board denied the veteran's claim for heart disability compensation 20 years after it was made. The veteran had filed the disagreement 2 weeks after the deadline, citing having had open heart surgery in his request for an extension. The board ruled the untimely filing deprives it of jurisdiction, yet still considered and rejected the request for a good cause extension of the deadline. The deadline is a claim-processing rule, not involving jurisdiction; therefore, the board must consider the veteran's extension request. Vacated.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Toth , Filed On: May 28, 2024, Case #: 21-3467, Categories: health Care, veterans, due Process
J. Allen finds the Board of Veterans Appeals improperly dismissed the adult daughter of the deceased Navy veteran's claim for adapted housing and automobile adaptive benefits. The board ruled the daughter, as substituted for her father, is only eligible for claims for periodic monetary benefits. However, the relevant code unambiguously provides that an eligible accrued benefits recipient can be substituted in a claim for any benefit. Reversed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Allen , Filed On: May 23, 2024, Case #: 22-4670, Categories: health Care, veterans, due Process
J. Bartley remands the veteran's daughter's appeal of a board decision denying her entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation benefits, finding she was not rendered permanently incapable of self-support prior to attaining age 18. A prior remand in which a medical record was constructively before the board by its being submitted to the court of appeals was not considered. Remand is required for the board to render a decision in consideration of the entire record.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Bartley , Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: 21-4616, Categories: health Care, veterans, due Process
Per curiam, the court of appeals dismisses the veteran's appeal of the board's remand of his claims of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10% for chronic sinusitis. The claims were remanded rather than finally adjudicated. Though the veteran requested review, the court does not have jurisdiction to review a board remand that failed to refer pending claims to the agency of original jurisdiction for initial adjudication.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 15, 2024, Case #: 20-3523, Categories: health Care, veterans, due Process
J. Toth finds the Board of Veterans Appeals properly issued its decision after an Army Vietnam veteran asked the board to delay issuing the decision regarding his disagreement with the effective date of compensation for cardiovascular disease. He sought delay until after his representative received a copy of his claims file in order to submit evidence. The veteran then filed a formal appeal for direct review, which allows for a more immediate decision, and the board issued its opinion before evidence was submitted. Because other procedural options exist, the fair process doctrine does not entitle the veteran to a delay when he requested expedited review. Affirmed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Toth, Filed On: April 24, 2024, Case #: 22-3957, Categories: health Care, veterans, due Process
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
[Consolidated] J. Bartley finds the board improperly denied the veterans' petitions for service-connected total disability benefits. The board can deny such benefits if it is found the veteran is gainfully employed. The definition of gainful employment does not apply to employment in low-wage, part-time positions, not subject to competition in the job market. The board did not apply this definition to either veteran's case or make the necessary factual findings to do so, and the appeals are set aside pending further development.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Bartley , Filed On: January 24, 2024, Case #: 21-4467, Categories: health Care, veterans, due Process
J. Bartley sets aside the Board of Veterans Appeals' denial of the veteran's award of a total disability evaluation. The veteran sought the evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities. The board discounted the relevance of his 60 percent aphonia evaluation because he was employed during the time of the evaluation. The board's findings on the veteran's functional capacity, other than as limited but not "prevent[ing] him from obtaining or maintaining...employment" is unclear. The information for review is limited and the record must be developed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Bartley , Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 21-6125, Categories: health Care, veterans, due Process
J. Bartley finds the Board of Veterans Appeals properly declined to review evidence for service connection for lupus submitted by the Navy veteran. The window to submit evidence began upon receipt of the veteran’s VA form, not when the board mailed its acknowledgement. The acknowledgment letter did not suggest a different date of receipt and contained no express or implied statement that the board received the form on a particular date. The veteran’s assertion that the letter was misleading and that he relied on it as reflecting a date of receipt is unsupported. Affirmed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Bartley, Filed On: June 8, 2023, Case #: 20-5411, Categories: health Care, veterans, due Process