claim

Single Judge Application; pause adjudication; Groves v. McDonough, 33 Vet.App. 368, 379 (2021) (recognizing that the Board must honor a claimant’s request to pause adjudication of his or her claim);

[ad_1]   Read More Here Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 20-7499WILLIAM G. FENNELL,…

2 years ago

Burn Pit Claim Assistance

[ad_1] The NVLSP launched its Burn Claim Assistance program:  Details at the NVLSP website: Burn Pit Claim AssistanceThe 5, 10,…

3 years ago

Tinnitus Claim Denied??? : Veterans

[ad_1] My Tinnitus claim was denied.I've been dealing with Tinnitus since I was IN the military. I just never complained…

3 years ago

Claim Accuracy Request (CAR); Expeditious review and determination of disability claim decisions;

[ad_1]   Read More Here Through a collaborative effort with VSOs and other representatives, VA launched a Claim Accuracy Request…

3 years ago

Claim for One Sum Payment Government Life Insurance and Claim for Monthly Payments Government Life Insurance: Agency Information Collection Activity

[ad_1] Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; the ultimate “lesson of our cases is that, while a pro se claimant’s ‘claim must identify the benefit sought,’ the identification need not be explicit in the claim-stating documents, but can also be found indirectly through examination of evidence to which those documents themselves point when sympathetically read.” Shea v. Wilkie, 926 F.3d 1362, 1368–69 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Here, the claim-stating documents pointed, when sympathetically viewed, to a history of symptoms of abdominal pain that yielded a diagnosis of gastritis. And that’s not all. The veteran’s gastritis was expressly linked to service by VA’s own medical examiner—in the context of an examination sought by the Agency as part of the development of Mr. Martinelli’s other claims.; The Secretary says the veteran is out of his depth in suggesting to the Court that melatonin use indicates sleep issues. But even if that were true, the veteran retorts, the Secretary forgets the Court’s ability to take judicial notice of facts generally known. See Tagupa v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 95, 100-01 (2014). Indeed, one need look no further than a basic medical dictionary to conclude that his in-service prescription was favorable, material evidence. Melatonin is “a hormone . . . implicated in the regulation of sleep, mood, puberty, and ovarian cycles. It has been tried therapeutically for a number of conditions, including insomnia and jet lag.” DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY 1110 (33d ed. 2020). The Board has a responsibility to explain why it rejects favorable, material evidence. Garner v. Tran, 33 Vet.App. 241, 250 (2021).;

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; the ultimate “lesson of our cases is that, while a pro se claimant’s ‘claim must…

3 years ago