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
Wednesday, April 24, 2024
No Result
View All Result
No Result
View All Result

Tag: Determination

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.;

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.;

by The Editor
November 12, 2021
0

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 ...

Single Judge Application; Geib, 733 F.3d at 1354 (establishing that “applicable regulations place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the VA, not a medical examiner”); Board was therefore prohibited from characterizing their silence on the issue as substantive evidence against entitlement to TDIU; AZ v. Shinseki, 731 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that “where a condition would not normally have been recorded, the Board may not consider the absence of [administrative record] evidence as substantive negative evidence of that condition.”); “[T]he absence of evidence on a particular question cannot be construed as negative evidence against a claimant unless there is a foundation in the record that demonstrates that such silence has a tendency to prove or disprove a relevant fact.” Delrio, 32 Vet.App. at 240 (citing Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 258, 272 (2015));

Single Judge Application; Geib, 733 F.3d at 1354 (establishing that “applicable regulations place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the VA, not a medical examiner”); Board was therefore prohibited from characterizing their silence on the issue as substantive evidence against entitlement to TDIU; AZ v. Shinseki, 731 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that “where a condition would not normally have been recorded, the Board may not consider the absence of [administrative record] evidence as substantive negative evidence of that condition.”); “[T]he absence of evidence on a particular question cannot be construed as negative evidence against a claimant unless there is a foundation in the record that demonstrates that such silence has a tendency to prove or disprove a relevant fact.” Delrio, 32 Vet.App. at 240 (citing Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 258, 272 (2015));

by The Editor
November 10, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; Geib, 733 F.3d at 1354 (establishing that “applicable regulations place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the VA, not a medical examiner”); Board was therefore ...

“[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

“[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

by The Editor
October 5, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); The RO’s request distinguished between the veteran’s statements and the other evidence of record: “rivate medical ...

Single Judge Application; “The [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Federal Circuit made it clear that the Board is not bound by [M21-1] ; Overton, 30 Vet.App. at 264 (“[T]he Board is required to discuss any relevant provisions contained in the M21-1 . . . , but because it is not bound by those provisions, it must make its own determination before it chooses to rely on an M21-l provision . . . .”); It is unclear how the Board came to this conclusion that consistent and prolonged exposure was required because that language is not found within the M21-1 provision that was provided to appellant as a reference for establishing presumptive service connection; Andrews v. McDonough, __ Vet.App. , , No. 19-0352, 2021 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1091, at *17-20 (June 22, 2021) (“[T]he VA ma y [not] tell a veteran how to establish a service connection for his [condition] only to move the goalposts once he has done so. This kind of goalpost-moving does not reflect an optimal mode of administrative decisionmaking.” (quoting Hudick v. Wilkie, 755 F. App’x 998, 1006-07 (Fed. Cir. 2018)));

Single Judge Application; “The [U.S. Court of Appeals for the] Federal Circuit made it clear that the Board is not bound by [M21-1] ; Overton, 30 Vet.App. at 264 (“[T]he Board is required to discuss any relevant provisions contained in the M21-1 . . . , but because it is not bound by those provisions, it must make its own determination before it chooses to rely on an M21-l provision . . . .”); It is unclear how the Board came to this conclusion that consistent and prolonged exposure was required because that language is not found within the M21-1 provision that was provided to appellant as a reference for establishing presumptive service connection; Andrews v. McDonough, __ Vet.App. , , No. 19-0352, 2021 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1091, at *17-20 (June 22, 2021) (“[T]he VA ma y [not] tell a veteran how to establish a service connection for his [condition] only to move the goalposts once he has done so. This kind of goalpost-moving does not reflect an optimal mode of administrative decisionmaking.” (quoting Hudick v. Wilkie, 755 F. App’x 998, 1006-07 (Fed. Cir. 2018)));

by The Editor
August 30, 2021
0

Single Judge Application; “The Federal Circuit made it clear that the Board is not bound by ; Overton, 30 Vet.App. at 264 (“he Board is required to discuss any relevant ...

  • Trending
  • Comments
  • Latest
No Result
View All Result

198 Veterans News - Copyright AllRights Reserved.