78 results for 'cat:"Veterans"'.
J. Toth finds the Board of Veterans Appeals improperly discontinued the Army veteran’s minimum compensation rating for Parkinson’s disease. Though the board replaced the minimum rating with a combined rating for three distinct manifestations evaluated under different diagnostic codes, those ratings account for only some of the manifestations. According to a plain reading of the diagnostic code, compensable ratings under other codes should be added to the minimum rating as long as additional manifestations are not compensable. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Toth, Filed On: July 21, 2023, Case #: 20-5759, Categories: Government, Health Care, veterans
J. Stark finds that the veterans court properly denied benefits based on evidence of the veteran's "willful and persistent misconduct." Affirmed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Stark, Filed On: July 14, 2023, Case #: 22-1607, Categories: veterans
J. Stoll finds that the board of veterans' appeals improperly ruled regarding a disability rating by misinterpreting the requirements of the regulation. Reversed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Stoll, Filed On: June 29, 2023, Case #: 2022-1243, Categories: veterans
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. Taranto finds that the veteran's court improperly declined to change the disability effective date because the veteran would have applied for disability sooner but for threats of court-martial should he reveal information regarding secret testing performed on him with chemical warfare agents. Reversed.
Court: Federal Circuit, Judge: Taranto, Filed On: June 15, 2023, Case #: 2019-2211, Categories: veterans, Military
J. Toth finds the Board of Veterans Appeals properly denied the Army veteran entitlement to non-service-connected pension benefits. The veteran’s net worth, which includes a family trust, renders him ineligible. The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act does not require the board to provide timely notice of the reasoning behind decisions effecting benefits. The board is also not required to obtain a legal expert to interpret complex documents such as the trust agreement. The secretary concedes errors in the trust valuation and the timing of the original filing and reopening of the claim as related to the implementation of the Act. Vacated and remanded.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Toth, Filed On: June 14, 2023, Case #: 20-3047, Categories: Pensions, Trusts, veterans
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
J. Ellis denies a motion for summary judgment from the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, on failure to accommodate claims brought by a former employee of the VA. The court finds the employee has reasonably alleged that the VA failed to accommodate her multiple sclerosis by when it didn’t provide her with an ergonomic office chair and keyboard. However, in exchange for allowing these claims to proceed, the former employee voluntarily dismisses her age and race discrimination claims.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Ellis, Filed On: May 31, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv865, NOS: Housing/Accommodations - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, veterans, Employment Discrimination
J. Chutkan denies, in part, the government's motion to dismiss discrimination and retaliation claims filed by a veteran and former worker with the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He has adequately pleaded his claims for age and disability discrimination.
Court: USDC District of Columbia, Judge: Chutkan , Filed On: May 24, 2023, Case #: 1:21cv2709, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: veterans, Employment Discrimination, Employment Retaliation
J. Falvey finds the Board of Veterans Appeals improperly denied the Navy veteran’s claim for an effective earlier date for left eye blindness and service-connected cataracts. The court evokes navigation “through long-gone regulations … past zombie precedent … thought slain by the Supreme Court” in finding that the VA failed to give the veteran proper notice. The initial notice didn’t explain that service connection was denied for cataracts and evidence fails to show that the veteran knew that he could appeal a 1965 corrective notice. The differences between the initial notice and the corrective notice did not reasonably state that the denial could be appealed, and so the appeal never became final. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Falvey, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 21-5454, Categories: Government, Health Care, veterans
J. Bartley finds the Board of Veterans Appeals properly denied the Marine Corps veteran entitlement to disability evaluations greater than 20% for right shoulder disabilities, though it sets aside the denial for left knee disabilities and greater than 10% for a skin condition. The decision as to his right shoulder is based upon a ratings schedule regarding arm movements which were not argued. Evidence as to the veteran’s left knee movements and skin condition was not adequately assessed. Affirmed in part. Set aside in part and remanded. Dismissed in part.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Bartley, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 20-8637, Categories: Evidence, Health Care, veterans
J. Toth grants the Secretary of Veterans Affair’s motion for reconsideration of the surviving spouse’s appeal of the board’s decision dismissing the veteran’s claim for a higher rating for a right knee condition. The opinion given “is principally a restatement of [an] earlier decision vacating the June 2020 Board decision, modified … to address matters raised in the Secretary’s reconsideration motion.” Vacated and remanded.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Toth, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 21-1411, Categories: Health Care, veterans, Due Process
J. Pietsch finds the Board of Veterans Appeals improperly denied the Air Force vet’s initial compensable disability rating for allergic rhinitis and service connection for sinusitis, headaches and diabetes. The decision didn’t provide a required general statement, failing to correctly identify evidence it did not consider in its decision. The general statement must accurately inform the claimant why evidence was not considered and of what options are available for having it considered. The board did not consider evidence submitted during the period between the original decision and the notice of disagreement, and provided a misleadingly inaccurate general statement informing the vet that it did not consider only evidence received after the 90 days following the notice. This prejudiced the veteran. Remanded.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Pietsch, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 20-6853, Categories: Health Care, veterans, Due Process
Per curiam, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims grants the Secretary of Veterans Affair’s motion to dismiss the vet’s application for attorney fees brought under the Equal Access to Justice Act after his case was remanded for development. The veteran has not demonstrated an extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing, so equitable tolling is not warranted.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 23, 2023, Case #: 20-0945(E), Categories: veterans, Due Process, Attorney Fees