Including

Panel Application; Otero-Castro v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 375, 380 (2002) (“The basic principles that apply to construing statutes apply equally to construing regulations.”). If it is not clear, “the Court may look to other sources, including the history and purpose of the regulation.” Bailey v. Wilkie, 33 Vet.App. 188, 194 (2021); see Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2415 (explaining that to exhaust the traditional tools of regulatory construction, “a court must ‘carefully consider[]’ the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation” (quoting Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 n.9 (1984))). “[D]eference [to the Agency] can arise only if a regulation is genuinely ambiguous[,] . . . after a court has resorted to all the standard tools of interpretation.” Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2414;

[ad_1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-0517JOAN NAILOS, APPELLANT,V.DENIS MCDONOUGH,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.On Appeal from the…

2 years ago

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”);

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; flare-up; this Court’s caselaw and VA guidelines requiring VA medical examiners, in situations when direct…

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

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

Panel Application; Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 32, 44 (2011) (holding that, for a VA joints exam to be adequate, the examiner must portray the extent of functional loss or limitation due to pain and the other factors set forth in 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45, including pain with repetitive use and on flare-up); see also Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 26, 34-35 (2017) (holding that an examiner’s refusal to offer a flare opinion without resort to speculation is adequate only when it is “clear that [it] is predicated on a lack of knowledge among the ‘medical community at large’ and not the insufficient knowledge of the specific examiner”); the Board erred by relying on the September 2017 VA exam, which they consider inadequate because the examiner did not adequately address why he could not opine, without resorting to speculation, whether pain weakness, fatigability, or incoordination limited Mr. Andrews’s functional ability with repeated use over time.15; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] Panel Application; Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 32, 44 (2011) (holding that, for a VA joints exam to…

3 years ago

Agency Information Collection Activity Under OMB Review: Application for DIC by Parent(s) Including Accrued Benefits and Death Compensation

[ad_1] In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department…

3 years ago