77 results for 'cat:"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
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. 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
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
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