6 results for 'cat:"Health Care" AND cat:"Veterans" AND cat:"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
[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
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
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. 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