Case

Former case manager says high workload is hurting Canadian veterans – National

[ad_1] A former case manager with Veterans Affairs Canada is speaking out about the overwhelming caseloads, lack of support…

2 years ago

Single Judge Application; section 311 meant in 1981; CUE; presumption of soundness; The appellant argues that the Board erred in its determination that no CUE existed in the 1981 RO decision. Specifically, he contends that Wagner is an authoritative statement of what section 311 meant at the time of the 1981 RO decision. Appellant’s Brief (Br.) at 6. The Court agrees with the appellant that the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of section 1111 in Wagner is an authoritative statement of what that statute has meant since the date of enactment in 1958. See Rivers v. Roadway Express, 511 U.S. 298, 312-13 (1994) (“A judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision of the case giving rise to that construction.”); Patrick v. Shinseki, 668 F.3d at 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We made clear . . . , that ‘[u]nlike changes in regulations and statutes, which are prospective, our interpretation of a statute is retrospective in that it explains what the statute has meant since the date of enactment.’” (quoting Patrick v. Nicholson, 242 F. App’x 695, 698 (Fed. Cir. 2007)(remanding for further consideration of CUE request using the correct standard articulated in Wagner and directing remand to Board, if necessary, to determine whether the Secretary has rebutted the presumption of soundness by providing clear and unmistakable evidence that the presumption has been rebutted))); see also Jordan v. Nicholson, 401 F.3d 1296, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that the appellant’s CUE request challenges the validity of a regulation but does not question the correct legal standard under the statute, and that “Wagner governs that issue”). Thus, the Court agrees with the appellant that the Board erred when it concluded that he could not challenge the correct legal standard that applies under section 1111 in the CUE context.;

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; section 311 meant in 1981; CUE; presumption of soundness; The appellant argues that the Board…

2 years ago

Marine-turned-kingpin pleads guilty in drug trafficking case

[ad_1] A U.S. Marine veteran has pleaded guilty in San Diego federal court to orchestrating a drug-trafficking operation that moved…

2 years ago

Feds promise to hire more staff to tackle veterans’ case backlog: minister – National

[ad_1] The federal Liberal government is promising to hire more staff to tackle a backlog of requests for assistance…

2 years ago

US Air Force general with ‘breakthrough’ COVID-19 case urges vaccination

[ad_1] A week before the deadline for Air Force service members to get vaccinated against the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), Lt.…

2 years ago

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;

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303; applicability Board decisions; Board decisions are “considered binding only with regard…

3 years ago

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;

[ad_1] FedCir; Regents is an application of the APA’s “arbitrary, capricious” standard of review, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 107, 109 (2017); “entitlement to a separate evaluation in a given case depends on whether the manifestations of disability for which a separate evaluation is being sought have already been compensated by an assigned evaluation under a different DC.” Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 107, 109 (2017). Further, a veteran with a musculoskeletal disability, such as Mr. Wilson’s left knee disability, may be entitled to a higher disability evaluation than that supported by mechanical application of the schedule where there is evidence that the disability causes “additional functional loss—i.e., ‘the inability . . . to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination[,] and endurance’— including as due to pain and/or other factors” or “reduction of a joint’s normal excursion of movement in different planes, including changes in the joint’s range of movement, strength, fatigability, or coordination.” Id. at 117-18 (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 and citing 38 C.F.R. § 4.45); see Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 26, 32 (2017) (“Flare-ups . . . must be factored into an examiner’s assessment of functional loss”); Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 32, 36-37 (2011); DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 202, 205-07(1995).;

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 107, 109 (2017); “entitlement to a separate evaluation in a…

3 years ago

“[P]rivate medical evidence since the initial exam that indicates the veteran’s medical history [] include[s] cold injury residuals [is] based upon his verbal history—not the evidence of record.” R. at 3583. There is no doubt that the RO’s distinction between the “evidence of record” and the veteran’s own statements was completely misleading at best. See 38 U.S.C.§ 5107(b) (requiring the Secretary to “consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case”); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting that VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim to disability or death benefits); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (explaining that””lay evidence is one type of evidence that must be considered, if submitted, when a veteran’s claim seeks disability benefits” and holding that, in certain situations, “competent lay evidence can be sufficient in and of itself” to establish entitlement to such benefits). The language used in the request indicates that the veteran’s own statements are not “evidence of record” and would require at least corroboration in service medical records to be credible and probative. That is contrary to Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1335 (finding improper the Board’s determination that ‘lay statements lacked credibility merely because they were not corroborated by contemporaneous [SMRs]”).; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); The RO’s request distinguished between…

3 years ago

Case of 76 in veterans home who died of COVID lands in court

[ad_1] SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (AP) — Two former top officials at a Massachusetts veterans home where nearly 80 residents died in…

3 years ago
Show more Posts