27 results for 'court:"Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims"'.
Per curiam, the court of appeals dismisses a veteran's pro se petition seeking an order requiring the VA to show cause as to why its precluding self-represented claimants from remote access to the benefits management system is not invalid. Though accessing the system in person or through a CD mailed to him is difficult and time-consuming, the court does not have jurisdiction to issue such an order.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: May 3, 2024, Case #: 23-2587, Categories: Government, Veterans, Jurisdiction
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
J. Allen sets aside the Board of Veterans Appeals decision denying the service-voided veteran's request for benefits. The veteran's service was voided after his enlistment on grounds he lied about his criminal record. Though voided service is generally equivalent to a dishonorable discharge, the board potentially applied the incorrect legal framework with unclear analysis. The board must clarify whether regulation involving dishonorable discharge or voided service specifically applies.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Allen , Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: 21-6977, Categories: Fraud, Veterans, Military
J. Toth denies the veteran's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to prevent Veterans Affairs from limiting his continued entitlement to post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits while his administrative appeal proceeds. Though he said he will suffer irreparable harm if the issue was not resolved before the fall 2023 semester, he can still appeal any future adverse agency decision affecting the benefits, and so has an adequate alternative means of relief. Threat of irreparable harm has been removed by action that correctly calculated the veteran's eligibility for continued benefits before the semester began.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Toth , Filed On: March 13, 2024, Case #: 23-2589, Categories: Education, Veterans, Due Process
J. Jaquith finds the board improperly denied the Navy veteran total disability. The veteran sought a total disability rating based on unemployability and was denied for lack of service connection. Though the veteran received service connection benefits for an acquired psychiatric disorder, the board made no evidentiary findings on the unemployability claim and did not thoroughly consider its merits. Vacated
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Jaquith, Filed On: February 16, 2024, Case #: 21-4193, Categories: Health Care, Insurance, 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
[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. 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
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. 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. Falvey finds the Board of Veterans Appeals properly rejected the Army veteran’s argument that the timing of his application for total disability either obscured the validity of his withdrawal of another claim or was a request to rescind that withdrawal. Neither he nor the record suggested that his cognitive impairment cast doubt on the validity of his withdrawal of his appeal, and the Board was not required to explore the issue. The Board considered all the evidence relevant to the claimed reason for disregarding the withdrawal. Affirmed.
Court: Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims, Judge: Falvey, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: 21-5284, Categories: Health Care, Due Process, Military
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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