Veterans Day Message from President Trump

Veterans Day Message from President Trump

August 1, 2022
Navajo Code Talker Samuel Sandoval dies

Navajo Code Talker Samuel Sandoval dies

August 1, 2022
#VeteranOfTheDay Marine Corps Veteran Victor “Brute” Harold Krulak

#VeteranOfTheDay Marine Corps Veteran Victor “Brute” Harold Krulak

August 1, 2022
Trump supporters attempt world record boat parade near Clearwater Beach

Trump supporters attempt world record boat parade near Clearwater Beach

August 1, 2022
Veteran honored for once-secret role in WWII ‘Ghost Army’

Veteran honored for once-secret role in WWII ‘Ghost Army’

August 1, 2022
Helping a Fellow Vet with Disability Claim : Veterans

Helping a Fellow Vet with Disability Claim : Veterans

July 31, 2022
Table Tennis 1. European Championship1995 Vienna (Wien)Veterans Orlovwki Dvoracek Tischtennis

Table Tennis 1. European Championship1995 Vienna (Wien)Veterans Orlovwki Dvoracek Tischtennis

July 31, 2022
Low-Cost Tech Shaping Modern Battlefield > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News

Low-Cost Tech Shaping Modern Battlefield > U.S. Department of Defense > Defense Department News

July 31, 2022
The Army won’t lower its standards again to meet recruitment goals

The Army won’t lower its standards again to meet recruitment goals

July 31, 2022
Coast Guard veteran held without bail in ID theft mystery

Coast Guard veteran held without bail in ID theft mystery

July 31, 2022
British Normandy Memorial opens on D-Day anniversary

British Normandy Memorial opens on D-Day anniversary

July 31, 2022
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall Stories

Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall Stories

July 31, 2022
Sunday, April 28, 2024
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result

Tag: Application

Single Judge Application; Ortiz v. McDonough; The Federal Circuit comprehensively considered whether the 2010 amendment to 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) was liberalizing, ultimately determining that it was, Ortiz v. McDonough, 6 F.4th at 1275-1283, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22305, at *16-38; The Federal Circuit specifically disapproved of this Court’s decision in Foreman, Ortiz v. McDonough, 6 F.4th at 1275-1283, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22305, at *35-38;

Single Judge Application; Ortiz v. McDonough; The Federal Circuit comprehensively considered whether the 2010 amendment to 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) was liberalizing, ultimately determining that it was, Ortiz v. McDonough, 6 F.4th at 1275-1283, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22305, at *16-38; The Federal Circuit specifically disapproved of this Court’s decision in Foreman, Ortiz v. McDonough, 6 F.4th at 1275-1283, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22305, at *35-38;

by The Editor
November 9, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; Ortiz v. McDonough; The Federal Circuit comprehensively considered whether the 2010 amendment to 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) was liberalizing, ultimately determining that it was, Ortiz v. ...

Single Judge Application; flare-up; this Court’s caselaw and VA guidelines requiring VA medical examiners, in situations when direct observation is not possible, to opine on and quantify the effect of pain on functioning based on other evidence. See, e.g., Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 26, 35 (2017) (instructing VA examiners, when conducting examinations that do not take place during a flare-up, to “offer flare opinions based on estimates derived from information procured from relevant sources, including the lay statements of veterans”);

Single Judge Application; flare-up; this Court’s caselaw and VA guidelines requiring VA medical examiners, in situations when direct observation is not possible, to opine on and quantify the effect of pain on functioning based on other evidence. See, e.g., Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 26, 35 (2017) (instructing VA examiners, when conducting examinations that do not take place during a flare-up, to “offer flare opinions based on estimates derived from information procured from relevant sources, including the lay statements of veterans”);

by The Editor
November 7, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; flare-up; this Court’s caselaw and VA guidelines requiring VA medical examiners, in situations when direct observation is not possible, to opine on and quantify the effect ...

Single Judge Application; Pain limits ability to function; Deluca factors; in rating musculoskeletal disabilities, the Board must rely on VA examinations that consider whether and to what extent pain, or other factors listed in 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 (the Deluca factors), limit a veteran’s ability to function. Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 26, 32 (2017). If pain causes functional loss, it “must be rated at the same level as if that functional loss were caused by some other factor.” Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 32, 37, (2011). For an examination to adequately capture functional loss, the examiner must opine whether pain could significantly limit functional ability and, if feasible, portray that opinion “‘in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to pain on use or during flare-ups.’” Sharp, 29 Vet.App. at 32 (quoting Deluca v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 202, 206 (1995)). If an examiner is unable to offer a nonspeculative estimate of a veteran’s functional loss due to pain, the examiner must explain why such an opinion cannot be offered. Id. at 32;

Single Judge Application; Pain limits ability to function; Deluca factors; in rating musculoskeletal disabilities, the Board must rely on VA examinations that consider whether and to what extent pain, or other factors listed in 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 (the Deluca factors), limit a veteran’s ability to function. Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 26, 32 (2017). If pain causes functional loss, it “must be rated at the same level as if that functional loss were caused by some other factor.” Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 32, 37, (2011). For an examination to adequately capture functional loss, the examiner must opine whether pain could significantly limit functional ability and, if feasible, portray that opinion “‘in terms of the degree of additional range-of-motion loss due to pain on use or during flare-ups.’” Sharp, 29 Vet.App. at 32 (quoting Deluca v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 202, 206 (1995)). If an examiner is unable to offer a nonspeculative estimate of a veteran’s functional loss due to pain, the examiner must explain why such an opinion cannot be offered. Id. at 32;

by The Editor
November 7, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; Pain limits ability to function; Deluca factors; in rating musculoskeletal disabilities, the Board must rely on VA examinations that consider whether and to what extent pain, ...

Single Judge Application; reason and bases; Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001); failure discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant; Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994); the Board cannot “evade [its] statutory responsibility [to state the reasons or bases for its conclusions] merely by adopting [a medical opinion] as its own” where the medical opinion “fails to discuss all the evidence which appears to support [the] appellant’s position.” Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994). Gabrielson does not require that a medical opinion discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant, only that the Board, in relying on an opinion that does not do so, discuss any additional favorable evidence to comply with its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. See id.; 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see also Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001) (holding that, although the Board must consider all of the evidence of record, “a discussion of all evidence is not required when . . . the Board has supported its decision with thorough reasons or bases regarding the relevant evidence”);

Single Judge Application; reason and bases; Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001); failure discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant; Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994); the Board cannot “evade [its] statutory responsibility [to state the reasons or bases for its conclusions] merely by adopting [a medical opinion] as its own” where the medical opinion “fails to discuss all the evidence which appears to support [the] appellant’s position.” Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994). Gabrielson does not require that a medical opinion discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant, only that the Board, in relying on an opinion that does not do so, discuss any additional favorable evidence to comply with its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. See id.; 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see also Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001) (holding that, although the Board must consider all of the evidence of record, “a discussion of all evidence is not required when . . . the Board has supported its decision with thorough reasons or bases regarding the relevant evidence”);

by The Editor
October 30, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; reason and bases; Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001); failure discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant; Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. ...

Panel Application; section 1155 directs the Secretary to establish in the rating schedule “ten grades of disability” for evaluating the severity of such conditions, the Secretary has provided less than ten levels of disability for most of the conditions listed in the schedule. See generally 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.71a – 4.150 (1992). Therefore, the schedular ratings established by the Secretary for compensation purposes may not in all cases provide a sufficiently comprehensive basis for determining when a measured worsening of a particular veteran’s condition in service constitutes an “increase in disability” for purposes of establishing service connection through aggravation under section 1153. This would seem to be so where the next higher rating is more than one decile greater. Furthermore, the rating-schedule provisions may not in all cases provide the most accurate or most logical basis for determining whether there has been an “increase in disability” during service. For example, with respect to organic mental disorders and psychoneurotic disorders, the rating schedule provides for disability ratings based on a finding that the condition causes “total”, “severe”, “considerable”, “definite”, or “mild” social and industrial impairment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.132, Diagnostic Codes 9300-9411 (1992);

Panel Application; section 1155 directs the Secretary to establish in the rating schedule “ten grades of disability” for evaluating the severity of such conditions, the Secretary has provided less than ten levels of disability for most of the conditions listed in the schedule. See generally 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.71a – 4.150 (1992). Therefore, the schedular ratings established by the Secretary for compensation purposes may not in all cases provide a sufficiently comprehensive basis for determining when a measured worsening of a particular veteran’s condition in service constitutes an “increase in disability” for purposes of establishing service connection through aggravation under section 1153. This would seem to be so where the next higher rating is more than one decile greater. Furthermore, the rating-schedule provisions may not in all cases provide the most accurate or most logical basis for determining whether there has been an “increase in disability” during service. For example, with respect to organic mental disorders and psychoneurotic disorders, the rating schedule provides for disability ratings based on a finding that the condition causes “total”, “severe”, “considerable”, “definite”, or “mild” social and industrial impairment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.132, Diagnostic Codes 9300-9411 (1992);

by The Editor
October 28, 2021
0

Panel Application; section 1155 directs the Secretary to establish in the rating schedule “ten grades of disability” for evaluating the severity of such conditions, the Secretary has provided less ...

Single Judge Application; This Court has held that “[l]ay testimony is competent . . . to establish the presence of observable symptomatology and ‘may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection.’” Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 303, 307 (2007) (quoting Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 465, 469 (1994)). As this Court has often noted, “symptoms, not treatment, are the essence of any evidence of continuity of symptomatology.” Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 488, 496 (1997); see also Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 15, 19 (1991) (noting that the “regulation requires continuity of symptomatology, not continuity of treatment”);

Single Judge Application; This Court has held that “[l]ay testimony is competent . . . to establish the presence of observable symptomatology and ‘may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection.’” Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 303, 307 (2007) (quoting Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 465, 469 (1994)). As this Court has often noted, “symptoms, not treatment, are the essence of any evidence of continuity of symptomatology.” Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 488, 496 (1997); see also Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 15, 19 (1991) (noting that the “regulation requires continuity of symptomatology, not continuity of treatment”);

by The Editor
October 28, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; This Court has held that “ay testimony is competent . . . to establish the presence of observable symptomatology and ‘may provide sufficient support for a ...

Single Judge Application; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303; applicability Board decisions; Board decisions are “considered binding only with regard to the specific case decided.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 (2019); prior decisions in other appeals “may be considered in a case to the extent that they reasonably relate to the case.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303;

Single Judge Application; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303; applicability Board decisions; Board decisions are “considered binding only with regard to the specific case decided.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 (2019); prior decisions in other appeals “may be considered in a case to the extent that they reasonably relate to the case.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303;

by The Editor
October 27, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303; applicability Board decisions; Board decisions are “considered binding only with regard to the specific case decided.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 (2019); prior ...

Single Judge Application; the Board did not discuss the veteran’s contention that the RO’s request improperly described the contents of the record, constrained the August 2012 VA expert’s view of the file, and thereby essentially tainted the medical opinion; The Board is obligated to ensure that it provides appellants with fair process in the adjudication of their claims. See Smith v. Wilkie, 32 Vet.App. 332, 337 (2020) (citing Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119 (1993); Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384, 392-94 (1993)); In Smith, this Court held that the principle of fair process applies throughout the process of evidentiary development and is implicated when “the Board fails to procure a medical opinion in ‘an impartial, unbiased, and neutral manner’ when the opinion request contains a Board member’s own negative linkage opinion or otherwise suggests that an examiner should reach a predetermined conclusion.” Id. at 337-38 (citing Austin v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 547, 551-52 (1994));

Single Judge Application; the Board did not discuss the veteran’s contention that the RO’s request improperly described the contents of the record, constrained the August 2012 VA expert’s view of the file, and thereby essentially tainted the medical opinion; The Board is obligated to ensure that it provides appellants with fair process in the adjudication of their claims. See Smith v. Wilkie, 32 Vet.App. 332, 337 (2020) (citing Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119 (1993); Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384, 392-94 (1993)); In Smith, this Court held that the principle of fair process applies throughout the process of evidentiary development and is implicated when “the Board fails to procure a medical opinion in ‘an impartial, unbiased, and neutral manner’ when the opinion request contains a Board member’s own negative linkage opinion or otherwise suggests that an examiner should reach a predetermined conclusion.” Id. at 337-38 (citing Austin v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 547, 551-52 (1994));

by The Editor
October 27, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; the Board did not discuss the veteran’s contention that the RO’s request improperly described the contents of the record, constrained the August 2012 VA expert’s view ...

FedCir; Regents is an application of the APA’s “arbitrary, capricious” standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and this case is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A), which uses the same “arbitrary, capricious” language; we have used APA jurisprudence in applying the Title 38 provision. See Euzebio v. McDonough, 989 F.3d 1305, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“The Veterans Court must also review Board and VA determinations for ‘abuse of discretion’ and ‘arbitrary [and] capricious’ decision making, including whether the Board or VA[] entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem . . . .” (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A) and State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43)); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 432 n.2 (2011) (“[T]he Veterans Court’s scope of review, § 7261, is similar to that of an Article III court reviewing agency action under the [APA] . . . .”); Whether an agency has failed to address an important aspect of a problem, and is arbitrary and capricious for that reason, can turn on the specific statutes and regulations that govern the agency, see Oregon Natural Re-sources Council v. Thomas, 92 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir.1996), but that does not distinguish 38 U.S.C. § 7261 from 5 U.S.C. § 706;

FedCir; Regents is an application of the APA’s “arbitrary, capricious” standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and this case is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A), which uses the same “arbitrary, capricious” language; we have used APA jurisprudence in applying the Title 38 provision. See Euzebio v. McDonough, 989 F.3d 1305, 1322–23 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“The Veterans Court must also review Board and VA determinations for ‘abuse of discretion’ and ‘arbitrary [and] capricious’ decision making, including whether the Board or VA[] entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem . . . .” (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A) and State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43)); see also Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 432 n.2 (2011) (“[T]he Veterans Court’s scope of review, § 7261, is similar to that of an Article III court reviewing agency action under the [APA] . . . .”); Whether an agency has failed to address an important aspect of a problem, and is arbitrary and capricious for that reason, can turn on the specific statutes and regulations that govern the agency, see Oregon Natural Re-sources Council v. Thomas, 92 F.3d 792, 798 (9th Cir.1996), but that does not distinguish 38 U.S.C. § 7261 from 5 U.S.C. § 706;

by The Editor
October 26, 2021
0

FedCir; Regents is an application of the APA’s “arbitrary, capricious” standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and this case is governed by 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A), which uses ...

Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 … 7
  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
No Result
View All Result

198 Veterans News - Copyright AllRights Reserved.