- Free Consultation:
- 800-320-HELP
Court Remands Case for Higher Ratings on Veteran’s Back Condition and Radiculopathy
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims recently vacated and remanded a Board decision denying increased ratings for a veteran’s intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The veteran sought ratings exceeding 10% for both conditions, arguing the Board failed to address key evidence.
Background
The veteran, who served from April 1999 to March 2004, filed a claim for a back condition in October 2015. The VA granted service connection with a noncompensable rating, which was later increased to 10%. Additional ratings for bilateral radiculopathy were assigned at 10% each, effective October 2018. The veteran appealed, seeking higher ratings and earlier effective dates for the radiculopathy.
Key Evidence and Issues
1. Inadequate Consideration of Flare-Up Symptoms:
The Board ignored the veteran’s testimony about immobilizing flare-ups and did not consider how these affect his functional ability.
2. Overlooked Private Medical Opinion:
An April 2022 private opinion described advanced IVDS symptoms warranting a 20% rating. The Board failed to address this evidence.
3. Failure to Define “Mild” and “Moderate”:
For radiculopathy, the Board did not clarify the criteria distinguishing mild from moderate symptoms, rendering its decision unreviewable.
Court Findings
The Court found that the Board’s reasoning was inadequate and unsupported by the evidence. It agreed with the veteran that the Board must:
– Reassess the private medical opinion on advanced IVDS.
– Define “mild” and “moderate” paralysis for radiculopathy ratings.
– Evaluate the veteran’s testimony and the impact of flare-ups.
Outcome
The Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling highlights the importance of thorough evidence analysis and clear reasoning in veterans’ disability cases.
WHG achieved a remand for our client due to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ failure to fulfill its duty to assist and comply with a prior remand order. The Board did not adequately address whether the veteran’s PTSD claim warranted further evidence gathering or corroboration of his in-service stressors.
The court emphasized that VA’s duty to assist includes making reasonable efforts to obtain all relevant records. In this case, the VA dismissed the veteran’s PTSD claim because it deemed his stressor details insufficiently specific. However, under Gagne v. McDonald, the VA has an obligation to make multiple requests for records, even if the veteran cannot narrow the dates to a precise period.
The Board also neglected to consider new evidence provided since 2010, which might have been specific enough to allow further investigation. In addition, the Board did not comply with a 2021 joint motion for remand that directed it to examine whether the veteran’s 1981 hospitalization for insomnia was linked to his mental health condition. The Board’s decision merely repeated its prior findings without addressing this key issue.
The court’s remand directs the Board to critically reexamine the veteran’s claims, seek additional records as needed, and fully assess the evidence of his in-service mental health symptoms. This case highlights the importance of VA’s duty to assist veterans by gathering all relevant records and thoroughly examining evidence before issuing a decision. We remain committed to fighting for veterans’ rights to a fair and complete review of their claims.
Victory for Veteran’s GERD Rating Claim: Court Orders Remand for Clear Rating Criteria
In a recent win at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, we achieved a remand for our client, a Vietnam veteran, on his claim for a higher rating for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Board of Veterans’ Appeals improperly denied the veteran’s request for an increased rating by failing to define essential terms in the rating criteria, leaving the veteran without a clear explanation.
The Board rated the veteran’s GERD at 10%, yet did not explain what “persistently recurrent” episodes of epigastric distress meant, despite evidence of his regular GERD symptoms, including heartburn, choking, and severe pain. The Board also ignored a 2021 medical opinion describing “severe impairment” of his health due to GERD symptoms, without clarifying what qualifies as “considerable impairment of health.” When the VA uses subjective terms in its rating criteria, it must provide definitions to enable clear understanding of a veteran’s rating.
The court agreed that the Board’s failure to define these terms hindered both the veteran’s ability to understand his rating and the Court’s review of the decision. This remand requires the Board to clarify the criteria terms, reassess the evidence, and issue a well-supported decision.
This ruling highlights the VA’s duty to transparently explain rating criteria, ensuring veterans receive fair and comprehensible decisions. We are proud to fight for veterans and demand accurate, transparent evaluations for their service-connected conditions.
Our client recently secured a key victory before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. He served in the U.S. Army from 1994 to 1996 and from 1999 to 2012. In 2011, while still in service, our client filed a claim for a left foot disability following a bunionectomy. The VA initially granted a noncompensable rating for the scar caused by this condition.
The veteran continued to experience pain in his left foot and filed for a higher evaluation. The VA denied his request, despite his consistent reports of pain since service. In 2018, a VA examiner confirmed that the veteran’s scar caused a “near constant ache” and limited movement in his left toe. Based on this exam, the VA increased his rating to 10%, effective October 2018. However, the Board failed to assign the proper effective date. This was one reason we appealed the decision to the Court.
The Court found that the Board failed to address evidence of his painful scar from as early as 2011. It also neglected to consider that the veteran’s 2013 filing could be treated as a Notice of Disagreement with the VA’s earlier decision. The Court remanded the case for reconsideration of an earlier effective date for the veteran’s 10% rating.
This win reinforces the importance of ensuring that the VA properly evaluates veterans’ claims for service-connected disabilities. Contact our office for help with your VA disability claim.
Our firm recently secured a critical victory for a U.S. Army veteran at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). The Court set aside a March 2022 Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision, which had denied the veteran’s claim for VA disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychiatric disorders.
The Court found that the Board failed to properly fulfill its duty to assist and did not follow a previous Court remand order. This case involves claims of PTSD stemming from several in-service stressors, including threats from fellow soldiers and witnessing traumatic events. The Board had denied his claim by stating that his stressors lacked verification and dismissed his lay statements as inconsistent.
However, the Court determined that the Board did not adequately help the veteran corroborate his stressors. The VA had prematurely ended efforts to gather records without seeking additional details. The Court also found that the Board failed to address critical evidence, including a 1981 hospitalization for possible suicidal ideation, which could indicate in-service psychiatric symptoms.
This remand ensures that our client’s case will receive the attention it deserves, with the Board now required to critically examine his claims and fulfill its duty to assist in developing the necessary evidence. This decision highlights the importance of persistence and the veteran-friendly nature of VA claims processes. We remain committed to advocating for veterans and ensuring they receive the benefits they have earned.
Veterans dealing with denied claims should not hesitate to seek experienced legal counsel to ensure all relevant evidence is considered.
Our firm recently secured a victory for our client veteran at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). We appealed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision from February 2023 that denied him an initial disability rating above 50% for his depressive disorder.
The veteran, a U.S. Army and Air Force veteran, argued that the Board failed to consider his entire disability picture. The Board had focused on individual symptoms rather than the overall impact of his condition. His depression, linked to his service-connected tinnitus, caused significant sleep disturbances, irritability, and reduced interest in activities. Despite this, the Board concluded his symptoms did not justify a higher 70% rating.
The Court agreed with our argument, finding that the Board wrongly relied on evidence outside the appropriate time period. This included post-2020 medical records, which should not have influenced the Board’s decision. The Court determined that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
This victory ensures that our client’s case will receive the thorough review it deserves. Veterans like our client deserve fair consideration of all relevant evidence to obtain the appropriate disability rating for their service-connected conditions. We remain dedicated to advocating for veterans’ rights and securing the benefits they have earned.
For veterans seeking assistance with appeals, this case highlights the importance of detailed legal review and persistence in the fight for deserved benefits.
Our client, an Air Force veteran, recently achieved a significant victory before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The veteran sought an increase in his 50% disability rating for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), arguing that his condition warranted a higher evaluation.
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied his appeal, but failed to address crucial lay statements from him and his wife. These statements detailed significant memory issues, suicidal thoughts, and struggles with anxiety and depression. The Board overlooked this evidence, instead relying on VA and private exams that did not fully account for his symptoms.
The Court ruled that the Board erred by not discussing this relevant evidence, especially since memory loss and suicidal ideations are critical factors in determining disability ratings for MDD. The Court emphasized that lay statements are important in evaluating the severity of mental health conditions and ordered the Board to reconsider the case.
This ruling is a reminder that veterans deserve a thorough review of all evidence when seeking the correct disability rating. If you believe the VA has overlooked critical evidence in your case, contact us today for help.
Veterans Court Victory: Client’s PTSD Claim Remanded for Reconsideration
Our firm recently achieved a significant win for a U.S. Army veteran at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The veteran served from 1978 to 1984 as a hospital food services specialist. He sustained injuries during service, including a traumatic incident involving his forehead and nose. The veteran also faced disciplinary actions and later reported being a victim of sexual assault by his ex-wife.
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the veteran’s claim for service connection for PTSD. The Court, however, found the Board failed to properly assess whether the veteran’s in-service stressors, including personal assaults and the Oktoberfest bombings in Germany, had been adequately verified.
The Court ruled that the VA did not fully meet its duty to assist in verifying the stressors and failed to notify the veteran of alternate ways to prove PTSD claims stemming from personal assaults. The Court also noted that the Board did not consider whether the veteran’s disciplinary actions during service could indicate behavioral changes consistent with personal trauma.
This ruling highlights the importance of ensuring thorough evaluation and record requests by the VA when adjudicating claims for service-connected disabilities. The Court remanded the veteran’s PTSD claim for further investigation, ensuring another chance at obtaining the benefits he deserves. For more information on how we can assist with your VA claim, contact our office today.
Our client recently secured a significant victory before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Mr. Lopez served from 1992 to 1994, experiencing multiple stressors while stationed on the U.S.S. Juneau in Somalia. He filed claims for PTSD, left ear hearing loss, and TDIU, but the VA denied these claims. After appealing, our client sought further review, resulting in a favorable ruling from the Court.
The Court found that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) failed to meet its duty to assist in several areas. First, the BVA improperly denied the veterans claim for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). His service records clearly reflected psychiatric symptoms, such as claustrophobia, panic, and shortness of breath, which the Board overlooked. The Court ordered the VA to reconsider his MDD claim and provide a new medical exam.
Regarding PTSD, the Court noted Mr. Lopez had given sufficient information to verify his stressors through the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), yet the VA failed to request a record search. The Court remanded the PTSD claim for further investigation and review.
Additionally, the Court found VA audiology exams inconclusive regarding Mr. Lopez’s hearing loss. The VA did not attempt to obtain Department of Corrections records relevant to his hearing exam, prejudicing his case. The Court ordered a remand for further development of these records.
Lastly, the Court agreed that Mr. Lopez’s Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU) claim must be reconsidered, contingent on his service-connection claims. This victory underscores the importance of ensuring VA complies with its duty to assist veterans.
If you’ve received an unfavorable Board decision, please contact our office to discuss a possible appeal to CAVC.
Court Victory: Remand Ordered for Veteran’s IVDS Disability Ratings and TDIU Claim
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims recently ruled in favor of our client, remanding four claims related to his disability ratings and Total Disability Individual Unemployability (TDIU). This decision addresses errors in the Board’s handling of his left leg radiculopathy, sciatica, IVDS, and TDIU ratings.
VA conceded the Board’s failure to adequately assess Mr. Northedge’s left leg radiculopathy and sciatica ratings. Specifically, the Board ignored evidence of worsening nerve pain and “mild” pain ratings that didn’t reflect the severity of his symptoms. The Court agreed with this concession, ordering the Board to reassess these ratings.
The veteran’s primary contested claims involved his IVDS rating and TDIU status before November 12, 2015. For his IVDS, the Court found the Board did not fulfill its duty to maximize benefits by considering staged ratings during periods of symptom worsening before his 2015 surgery. Additionally, the Board failed to address TDIU by not considering if the veteran was working in a protected work environment. He received accommodations, such as wheelchair use and hospital transport, and used leave rather than working.
The Court concluded that the Board’s approach ignored key evidence. It emphasized that, when claims are intertwined, as with the veteran’s IVDS rating and TDIU, remand ensures proper review of both. This decision affirms the VA’s duty to fully evaluate veterans’ service-connected disabilities and potential entitlements under law.
Our team is committed to fighting for veterans’ rights to comprehensive evaluations, ensuring they receive the full benefits they deserve.
