78 results for 'cat:"Veterans"'.
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. Falvey finds the Board of Veterans Appeals properly denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for diabetes and bilateral lower extremity diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The VA provided the veteran with a medical exam to determine the severity of his diabetes, with the examiner confirming it is managed by diet and hypoglycemic agent. The record shows the board properly applied ratings schedule regulations that require it to consider specific medications. Affirmed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Falvey , Filed On: December 27, 2023, Case #: 22-3042, Categories: Government, Health Care, veterans
J. Laurer denies the petitioner's request for class certification in his action against the Secretary of Veterans Affairs regarding challenges to its other than honorable character of discharge. Though his request for relief had been satisfied after his receiving a new and material evidence determination after filing this petition, he argues his petition and class action request are not moot based on certain exceptions. The class questions in this case relate to manageability, while implicit adjudication questions are case specific and ill-suited to class-wide review and relief.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Laurer, Filed On: December 19, 2023, Case #: 22-7344, Categories: Government, veterans, Class Action
Per curiam, the court of appeals denies the claimants' petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the administration to re-adjudicate reimbursement claims for emergency care at non-VA facilities. The proposed class of petitioners fails to show the administration has unreasonably delayed adjudication of claims. The time involved in litigation, rulemaking and the competing interests in an overburdened system does not support the assertion that claims have been stalled to an extent warranting mandamus. There is also no need to certify a class to deny a writ to the whole class.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: December 6, 2023, Case #: 23-3260, Categories: veterans, Due Process, Class Action
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
J. Fitzwater denies, in part, the government's motion for summary judgment on a veteran's pro se medical malpractice action arising from treatment for his heart condition. There are questions of fact regarding his timely claims for delay in care of pulmonary vein stenosis and failure to diagnose, inform and treat pulmonary fibrosis.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Fitzwater, Filed On: December 5, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv982, NOS: Personal Injury - Medical Malpractice - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: veterans, Medical Malpractice
J. Allen reverses the Board of Veterans' Appeals' decision the Veterans Administration accredited agent is barred from receiving fees for his successful representation of the army veteran for past-due benefits on his PTSD disability rating based on clear and unmistakable error. The agent agreed to represent the veteran on a contingent-fee basis, which included 20 percent of past-due benefits. Though the agent did not file a notice of disagreement, the board originally relied on an invalid regulation to review his eligibility and made no factual or legal findings about his entitlement to fees. Reversed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Allen , Filed On: November 14, 2023, Case #: 21-8048, Categories: veterans, Due Process, Attorney Fees
J. Hughes finds that the veterans' court properly denied an extra-schedular rating for plaintiff's lumbar spine injury since the director properly considered recommendations from agency officials. Affirmed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Hughes, Filed On: November 7, 2023, Case #: 2022-1670, Categories: veterans
J. Bonilla finds for the U.S. in claims brought by a veteran who had been administratively separated because the veteran was found guilty of conduct unbecoming an officer for posting nude and sexually explicit photos and videos of himself with women other than his wife on "several adult websites."
Court: Court of Federal Claims, Judge: Bonilla, Filed On: November 6, 2023, Case #: 21-1994C, Categories: veterans, Military
J. Laurer finds the Board of Veterans Appeals properly denied the surviving spouse of the Army veteran accrued benefits and burial benefits. After Veterans Affairs terminated the veteran’s non-service-connected pension due to unreported unearned income, the veteran paid the $80,895 debt in full. He and his spouse then objected to the debt, saying that he had been service-connected for some time. The VA notified the veteran that he must submit all standard claim forms or an “intent to file.” He died before this occurred, and the objection letter, even if construed as an intent to file, cannot be changed into accrued benefits. Affirmed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Laurer, Filed On: October 25, 2023, Case #: 20-0774, Categories: Insurance, veterans, Due Process
J. Pietsch finds the Board of Veterans Appeals improperly denied the veteran’s request for service connection for sleep apnea. Governing code provides that more than one request for administrative review may be filed within a year of an initial decision, provided that it is not pending with another request. The board erred when it construed the notice of disagreement as an appeal from the decision on his supplemental claim rather than from the timely agency of original jurisdiction decision concerning his higher-level review request. Reversed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Pietsch, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: 20-7251, Categories: Government, Health Care, veterans
J. Allen grants Veterans Affairs’ motion to dismiss this appeal from the Army veteran’s claims for compensation for an aneurysm, service connection for depression, kidney failure and residuals of a stroke. The veteran sought to have the court hold that a 2020 notice of disagreement was timely, and the board provided that relief. On Sept. 7, 2023, the Board acted on the appeal and the only substantive issue, of whether the veteran’s VA Form 10182 was timely, has been fully resolved. The appeal is dismissed as moot; and there are no exceptions to mootness based on appellant’s pending request for class certification that would support a proceeding to address the merits.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Allen, Filed On: October 4, 2023, Case #: 20-2365, Categories: Health Care, veterans, Class Action
J. Allen denies the foundation’s request for a writ of mandamus converting Veterans Affairs’ temporary voluntary stay of termination of grants for Supportive Services for Veteran Families into an involuntary stay until all litigation concerning the termination has been resolved. The foundation’s arguments are conclusions or assertions directly contrary to the plain language of regulations and policy and are unsupported by evidence. The foundation has entirely failed to show that it is likely to succeed on the merits.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Allen, Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: 23-2114, Categories: Government, veterans
Per curiam, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims grants the Air Force veteran’s legal guardian’s petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Veterans Affairs to issue a decision regarding her reinstatement as payee, address her complaints that his current fiduciary is violating an agreement to support the family, and to release withheld funds. The VA removed the guardian as fiduciary after making a determination of misuse, appointing a paid fiduciary. The accusation proved to be false, but the VA failed to acknowledge this, refusing to restore the guardian’s and veteran’s circumstances. The VA has asserted, without acknowledging the petitioner’s status as legal guardian, that only the veteran, who has already been deemed incompetent, may request a change in fiduciary. If the VA does not act favorably on the guardian’s notice of disagreement she may appeal to the board.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 22-4698, Categories: veterans, Fiduciary Duty, Military
J. Srinivasan vacates the district court's finding for the Department of Veterans Affairs on a law firm's Freedom of Information Act case pertaining to documents concerning veterans and VA beneficiaries who are added to a background check system that identifies those barred from owning guns for having been adjudicated as "'mental defectives.'" The VA fails to show the documents it withheld on deliberative process and attorney-client privileges are exempt from disclosure. Vacated in part.
Court: DC Circuit, Judge: Srinivasan, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 21-5108 , Categories: Public Record, veterans
J. Meredith finds the Board of Veterans Appeals properly denied the totally disabled Army veteran’s entitlement to an additional allowance for his daughter on the basis of her full-time attendance at an approved educational institution. The daughter’s existing educational benefits have been exhausted and this precludes her from receiving further dependent allotment. The veteran has not demonstrated that the board erred in denying benefits. Affirmed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Meredith, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: 20-2154, Categories: Education, veterans
J. Bonilla finds that a veteran's challenge to the nature and basis of his separation from the army should be dismissed because the veteran selected voluntary retirement from several options he had been provided following his arrest on civil charges, which included involuntary separation and resignation.
Court: Court of Federal Claims, Judge: Bonilla, Filed On: August 4, 2023, Case #: 16-408C, Categories: veterans
J. Hughes finds that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims properly denied the veteran’s claim for service connection for several conditions, including PTSD and a psychiatric disorder. There was insufficient evidence to confirm a link between his conditions and his service. Affirmed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Hughes, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 2022-1089, Categories: Government, veterans
J. Lourie finds that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims properly denied the veteran's application for attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. There was no evidence the government acted inappropriately to support the award of costs. Affirmed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Lourie, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: 2022-1531, Categories: Government, veterans, Attorney Fees
J. Toth finds that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims may not review the regional office’s denial of the granddaughter of the deceased spouse of the deceased veteran’s request to be substituted for the claimant in this appeal. According to existing case law regarding substitution of claimants, the court’s jurisdiction is confined to review of final Board of Veterans Appeals decisions. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has “no authority to review regional office adjudicative determinations” directly. Vacated and dismissed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Toth, Filed On: August 1, 2023, Case #: 21-8176, Categories: Government, veterans, Military
J. Baker denies the veterans' motion for default judgment and dismisses a RICO, negligence, fraud and emotional distress action alleging that the doctor and pharmaceutical company conspired to prevent veterans suffering "blast-induced traumatic brain injury" from accessing hyperbaric oxygen treatment. The veterans' RICO claims are time-barred and they fail to allege the existence of an enterprise between the doctor and the company. The veterans also failed to plausibly allege that any conduct by the company caused their purported injury.
Court: USDC Southern District of Georgia, Judge: Baker, Filed On: August 1, 2023, Case #: 4:19cv189, NOS: Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability - Torts - Personal Injury, Categories: Fraud, veterans, Racketeering