proper

Single Judge Application; The Board cannot avoid adjudicating an issue before it, here the proper rating, simply because it may also arise in a different claim. See Rice, 22 Vet.App. at 450-54 (clarifying that TDIU is not a “claim” but an entitlement to a total disability rating when certain qualifications are met); As appellant notes, the Board’s failure to address entitlement to TDIU based solely on the veteran’s migraine headaches was prejudicial because that entitlement may lead to eligibility for SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s). See Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 280, 293 (2008) (“[S]ection 1114(s) does not limit ‘a service-connected disability rated as total’ to only a schedular rating of 100%, and the Secretary’s current regulation permits a [total disability rating based on individual unemployability] based on a single disability to satisfy the statutory requirement of a total rating.” (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s))); And VA has had a long-standing policy of considering SMC where it may apply, even if not explicitly raised. See Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 118, 121 (1991);

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; The Board cannot avoid adjudicating an issue before it, here the proper rating, simply because…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; deficient reasons and bases; It is the Board’s responsibility as factfinder to assess and weigh the evidence.18 Here, we simply do not know the weight, if any, the Board gave this evidence in assigning a rating for appellant’s GERD. It is important for the Board to make such a finding in the first instance.19 We recognize that the Secretary offers several arguments about why extraschedular referral is not warranted for appellant’s GERD. However, it is ultimately not his prerogative to provide an explanation that the Board did not. As we have often said, the Secretary cannot make up for the Board’s deficient statement of reasons or bases.20; 19 See Tadlock v. McDonough, 5 F.4th 1327, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Where additional findings of fact are necessary regarding mattes open to debate, the proper action is for the Veterans Court is to remand to the Board for consideration of those facts in the first instance.”).; 20 See In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“‘[C]ourts may not accept appellate counsel’s post hoc rationalization for agency action.’” (quoting Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962))); McCray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet.App. 243, 258 (2019) (“[T]he Secretary’s impermissible post-hoc rationalization cannot make up for shortcomings in the Board’s assessment.”); Simmons v. Wilkie, 30 Vet.App. 267, 277 (2018) (holding that the “Court cannot accept the Secretary’s post-hoc rationalizations” to cure the Board’s reasons-or-bases errors), aff’d, 964 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Smith v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 63, 73 (2015) (“[I]t is not the task of the Secretary to rewrite the Board’s decision through his pleadings filed in this Court.”).;

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; deficient reasons and bases; It is the Board’s responsibility as factfinder to assess and weigh…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; a MUCMI is “a diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or etiology[] that is characterized by overlapping symptoms and signs and has features such as fatigue, pain, disability out of proportion to physical findings, and inconsistent demonstration of laboratory abnormalities.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2)(ii). “Under the proper interpretation of the law, an illness is a MUCMI where either the etiology or pathophysiology of the illness is inconclusive.” Stewart v. Wilkie, 30 Vet.App. 383, 390 (2018); “Conversely, a multisymptom illness is not a MUCMI where both the etiology and the pathophysiology of the illness are partially understood.” Id.; “[W]hether an illness is ‘defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms’ . . . is a question of fact delegated to the VA . . . for consideration in the first instance.” Tadlock, 5 F.4th at 1338 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(2)(B)); » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; a MUCMI is “a diagnosed illness without conclusive pathophysiology or etiology[] that is characterized by…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 517, 531 (2014); apply the correct standard of proof for determining that issue; The examiner rejected the scientific evidence because it did not definitely establish a causal link as a generally accepted principle. However, “Congress has not mandated that a medical principle have reached the level of scientific consensus to support a claim for VA benefits.” Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 517, 531 (2014). Although the examiner rejected the scientific research evidence, “this did not relieve the Board of its obligation to consider and discuss the potentially favorable medical literature of record” that supported Mr. Lardinois’s theory of service connection and “to apply the correct standard of proof for determining that issue.” Id. at 531-32; see R. at 353-37 (scientific literature submitted by Mr. Lardinois). However, the Board did not discuss the scientific research evidence submitted by Mr. Lardinois; instead, it adopted the examiner’s opinion and his rejection of the scientific evidence without addressing or reconciling that opinion with the proper adjudicative standard of proof; » HadIt.com For Veterans Who’ve Had It With The VA

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 517, 531 (2014); apply the correct standard of proof for…

3 years ago

Single Judge Application; substantive negative evidence; Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 258, 272 (2015); Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 231, 239 (2012); to the extent that the Board’s analysis may be read as implicitly finding him not credible because his service records did not confirm his testimony regarding the locations of his barracks and the flightline relative to the Udorn Air Base perimeter, the Board generally must “first establish a proper foundation for drawing inferences against a claimant from an absence of documentation.” Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 258, 272 (2015); Notably, a lack of confirmation is not the same as a contradiction of the claimant’s assertions. See Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 231, 239 (2012) (observing that the absence of evidence is not necessarily substantive negative evidence). And here, the Board did not explain whether and why it would be expected to find corroboration of the barracks and flightline locations relative to the perimeter in Mr. Cornelious’s service records. Thus, to the extent that the Board drew a negative inference from the lack of corroborating service records and relied on that inference to find Mr. Cornelious not credible, the Court concludes that the Board failed to lay a proper foundation. See Fountain, 27 Vet.App. at 272; Horn, 25 Vet.App. at 239;

[ad_1] Single Judge Application; substantive negative evidence; Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 258, 272 (2015); Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App.…

3 years ago