- Free Consultation:
- 800-320-HELP
The Court vacated and remanded the Board’s decision denying the veteran a higher rating for a service-connected mental health condition and service connection for a cervical spine disorder. The Secretary agreed the Board failed to account for more severe mental health symptoms reported by VA’s own medical examiner. And we were finally able to correct years of VA mischaracterizing the veteran’s back claim. As early as 2014 the veteran filed a claim for “spine trauma.” In support, he submitted medical records showing a cervical spine condition. VA, to date, has never considered this claim but instead denied service-connection for a thoracolumbar back condition. This is despite the fact that the veteran never once claimed his lower back has a service-connected injury. We were happy to get this result for our client and look forward to VA finally seeing his upper back claim for what it is.
Our client, the veteran, filed a claim for service connection of a lower back disability. The Regional Office found in 2019 the client was involved in a motor vehicle accident while on active duty. The Board disagreed, but failed to properly rebut the favorable finding. To reject a previous favorable finding, such finding must be “rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). The Board cited to no such “clear and unmistakable evidence.” The Secretary agreed the Board erred and the parties jointly moved the Court to vacate the Board’s decision.
In a recent case involving spousal DIC benefits, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded a decision involving our client’s entitlement to Total Disability Individual Unemployability (TDIU). Here the client is the spouse of a deceased veteran. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals had denied our client’s TDIU claim without addressing substantial, favorable evidence related to his service-connected disabilities.
The Board must clearly explain its decisions, detailing its analysis of relevant evidence and explaining the reasoning behind its conclusions. In this case, however, the Board ignored critical evidence that demonstrated the impact of our client’s neurological impairments and urinary issues on his ability to maintain gainful employment.
We secured VA’s agreement that the Board’s decision relied too heavily on outdated medical records from 2012, disregarding later reports of worsening symptoms. These reports documented significant issues, including severe urinary incontinence, that conflicted with the Board’s conclusion that our client could perform sedentary work. The Board’s reliance on limited, inconsistent evidence violated its obligation to consider all relevant facts when evaluating a TDIU claim. By convincing VA’s attorneys of the Board’s error we were able to avoid a lengthy briefing process, thereby ensuring the soonest possible decision from VA on this claim.
With this remand, the Court has directed the Board to reexamine all available evidence and provide a thorough analysis. This decision underscores the importance of a fair, evidence-based evaluation of a veteran’s entitlement to TDIU benefits. Our victory paves the way for a more comprehensive review of our client’s claim, ensuring consideration of all relevant evidence regarding his employability.
In a recent win, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded our client’s case involving his Parkinson’s disease claim. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied his claim without addressing key issues raised in her Notice of Disagreement.
The Board must clearly explain its decisions and address all relevant issues presented in the record. However, it overlooked our client’s argument that the VA failed to evaluate other Parkinson’s symptoms beyond hand tremors. This oversight meant his other Parkinson’s-related impairments, despite being raised, went unaddressed by the Board.
Our client explicitly stated in her Notice of Disagreement that she sought evaluations for all symptoms associated with Parkinson’s. Despite this, the Board limited its analysis to hand tremors, disregarding other disabling manifestations. The law requires the Board to consider all relevant arguments, even those raised indirectly by the evidence.
The Court’s remand order requires the Board to address each of our client’s Parkinson’s-related symptoms, ensuring a comprehensive review. This victory underscores the importance of addressing all aspects of a veteran’s condition in VA claims, supporting a fair and complete evaluation process for those seeking disability benefits.
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims recently remanded our client’s claim for a compensable rating for eczema. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals had denied this claim based on an inadequate medical examination that overlooked critical evidence.
When the VA provides a medical examination, it must be thorough, accurate, and based on reasoned medical judgment. However, the Board relied on a January 2020 VA examination that underreported the extent of our client’s eczema. The examiner recorded affected areas across her chest, neck, back, arms, and legs but did not detail the size or appearance of each patch. Despite observing multiple affected areas, the examiner concluded that less than five percent of her body was impacted without explaining this calculation.
Our client testified in 2018 and 2022 about widespread eczema, describing affected areas covering her chest, back, arms, legs, and stomach. However, the Board dismissed her statements, incorrectly assuming she lacked the competence to estimate the eczema’s coverage on her body. Her testimony, consistent with the examiner’s observations, clearly indicated a broader impact of eczema than the Board acknowledged. Part of our argument centered around the rule that veterans are competent to report their lay observations of medical conditions and symptoms.
The remand order requires the Board to secure a new, comprehensive examination that thoroughly assesses the full scope of our client’s eczema. The order was jointly drafted with attorneys for VA. This victory ensures a fair review of her claim and underscores the VA’s responsibility to accurately evaluate veterans’ disability claims, reinforcing the importance of complete and accurate medical examinations.
In a significant victory, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded a decision involving our client’s respiratory condition claim. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals had dismissed this claim without addressing an essential issue: our client’s claim for obstructive sleep apnea. This oversight denied our client fair consideration for benefits tied to this sleep condition.
The law requires the Board to provide a clear, thorough explanation for each decision, covering all significant facts and legal issues. However, the Board dismissed our client’s respiratory claim based solely on a 2021 award for bronchiolitis obliterans. It failed to address whether our client’s obstructive sleep apnea should have been included under the broader respiratory condition claim. This omission violates the VA’s duty to fully explore and understand each veteran’s claim.
We argued that obstructive sleep apnea should have been evaluated within the respiratory condition claim. This claim received specific attention in our April 2024 submission, where we argued for this inclusion. The Board, however, dismissed the respiratory claim, failing to acknowledge or address our argument. Established case law prohibits the Board from ignoring issues raised by counsel.
The Court’s ruling sends the case back to the Board, mandating a thorough review and a detailed explanation. This remand paves the way for a fair evaluation of our client’s sleep apnea claim, reinforcing veterans’ rights to comprehensive, just consideration of their claims.
Settlement Victory Secures Retroactive Benefits for Veteran’s Coronary Disease, Diabetes, and Hypothyroidism
In a recent settlement with the Department of Veterans Affairs, we successfully secured retroactive benefits for our client. The agreement grants our client earlier effective dates for critical service-connected conditions, including coronary artery disease, diabetes, and hypothyroidism.
Under the settlement, the VA awarded an effective date of August 1, 2015, for the veteran’s coronary artery disease and associated bypass graft scar. The VA also established an effective date of December 16, 2019, for diabetes mellitus type II, including diabetic retinopathy and pseudophakia, and June 14, 2018, for hypothyroidism.
This resolution ensures our client receives long-overdue benefits tied to service-connected health conditions. WHG is honored to help veterans achieve justice and receive the benefits they deserve. Through proactive negotiation, we’ve ensured our client gains essential support for their service-connected conditions.
In a recent win before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, we successfully secured a remand for our client, a veteran seeking service connection for a low back disability. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals had improperly denied the claim by relying on a flawed VA medical examination. This examination failed to consider our client’s obesity as a potential “intermediate step” linking his service-connected conditions and low back disability.
Our argument focused on the duty of the VA to provide an adequate medical examination. Citing Barr v. Nicholson and Acevedo v. Shinseki, we argued that the examination must offer sound medical reasoning based on accurate facts. The 2019 VA examination, however, attributed the veteran’s back issues to obesity without considering whether his service-connected conditions contributed to that obesity, thus failing the standard of a reasoned opinion.
VA’s attorneys agreed that the Board erred when it failed to consider this, referencing a 2017 VA General Counsel opinion that highlights obesity as an “intermediate step” in some service-connection cases. This opinion stated that if a service-connected condition, like our client’s Achilles tendon injury, limits exercise and causes obesity, that obesity may contribute to other health issues, including back disabilities.
The Board also overlooked key evidence of our client’s altered gait, which his private physician linked to further back problems. The court remanded the case, directing the Board to reassess the claim, factoring in obesity and gait-related issues.
This decision emphasizes the VA’s responsibility to thoroughly assess veterans’ disabilities and provide adequate support in their claims. We are honored to fight for veterans’ rights and ensure their sacrifices are acknowledged.
In a recent case before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, we achieved a significant remand for a client’s Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) claim. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals improperly denied this claim by relying on an insufficient 2015 VA examination for our client’s chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
The 2015 VA examiner linked the veteran’s COPD to tobacco use, dismissing possible links to his Vietnam-era toxic exposure. However, the examiner failed to provide any detailed rationale for this conclusion. The court has established that a medical opinion’s value relies on clear, fact-based reasoning (Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake). Yet, this examination only offered an unsupported opinion, lacking the analysis required to guide the Board’s decision.
The Board further assumed that our client’s lack of in-service medical records on respiratory issues proved the absence of any service-related respiratory condition. However, the Board overlooked our client’s field treatment for a shrapnel wound, which he received without leaving his unit. The Board failed to explain why the absence of in-service records implied the absence of respiratory issues, given his combat circumstances.
The court’s remand directs the Board to reassess the case, requiring an examination that thoroughly considers all relevant facts and the potential impact of toxic exposure in Vietnam. This outcome highlights the VA’s duty to provide veterans and their families with comprehensive and reasoned medical evaluations. We remain committed to fighting for veterans and their loved ones, ensuring they receive the compensation they deserve.
In a recent case before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, we won a remand for our client’s Total Disability Individual Unemployability (TDIU) claim. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals improperly dismissed the claim as moot, failing to provide sufficient reasons or bases for its decision.
Under the law, the Board must offer a clear explanation for its findings, enabling veterans to understand the reasoning behind their decisions (Allday v. Brown). The Board denied TDIU without considering our client’s eligibility for TDIU prior to his 100% rating in January 2023. It dismissed relevant evidence from his medical history that pointed to unemployability, despite our client’s submission of credible, documented impairments impacting his work capacity.
The Board also failed to address whether the veteran’s service-connected disabilities—such as ischemic heart disease, severe neuropathy, and leg weakness—qualified him for TDIU before January 2023. Citing cases like Roberson v. Principi and Rice v. Shinseki, we argued that this oversight violated the VA’s duty to fully assess whether a veteran’s conditions justify TDIU on a factual basis.
The court remanded the case, instructing the Board to provide a thorough analysis of whether our client’s disabilities rendered him unable to secure gainful employment before his 100% rating date. This decision underscores the VA’s duty to fully consider all relevant evidence for TDIU claims, ensuring veterans receive the support they deserve.
