- Free Consultation:
- 800-320-HELP
Our client, a U.S. Army veteran, recently won a significant appeal before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Court vacated a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision that denied his claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD and major depressive disorder. The veteran attributed his condition to a traumatic incident in Germany during his service.
The Court found that the Board improperly relied on a flawed March 2023 VA medical opinion. This examiner failed to provide an adequate rationale for denying a psychiatric diagnosis and did not address prior diagnoses made by private clinicians in 2020 and 2023. The Board also gave undue weight to the VA examiner’s opinion without fully explaining why it discounted the private opinions, which linked the veteran’s condition to service-related trauma.
As a result of this legal victory, the veteran’s claim has been remanded, and the Board must reexamine the evidence, including favorable private medical opinions. Our firm continues to fight for veterans to receive the compensation they deserve for service-connected conditions.
If you need assistance with a VA disability claim, contact us today for a free consultation.
Our firm recently secured a major victory at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a veteran client. The Court vacated a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision that denied benefits for coronary artery disease (CAD). The veteran, who served in the U.S. Army from 1964 to 1969, sought service connection for CAD, attributing his condition to exposure to Agent Orange while stationed in Okinawa, Japan.
The Court ruled that the Board did not adequately address evidence that could support the veteran’s claim of herbicide exposure. Our argument highlighted that the veteran’s military duties, involving classified chemical operations, and several news articles about herbicide use in Okinawa warranted deeper consideration. Additionally, the Court agreed that the Board failed to evaluate the veteran’s symptoms of chest pain and hemoptysis during service, which could potentially indicate early signs of CAD.
The Court also found that the veteran was denied his right to a medical examination, despite repeated requests. The Board’s failure to address this issue was a key factor in the remand. Now, the veteran will have another opportunity to present his case, including a new examination to evaluate the connection between his CAD and military service.
This ruling is a significant win, ensuring that the VA must thoroughly evaluate all relevant evidence and uphold its duty to assist veterans. Our firm remains dedicated to securing the benefits veterans deserve, and we are proud to have helped this veteran take another step toward the compensation he earned.
If you or a loved one need assistance with a VA disability claim, contact us for a free consultation.
Our client served in the U.S. Marine Corps from March 1966 to March 1968. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied his claims for bilateral upper and lower extremity radiculopathy. This was the second time we appealed these denials to the Court. The first time the Secretary agreed the Board erred in how it considered an inadequate VA medical opinion. This second time around the Court agreed with our position (over the Secretary’s objections) that the Board had not corrected this error.
A VA medical examiner said the veteran’s conditions could have “multiple etiologies” and left it at that. The result of the first appeal was an instruction from the Court that the Board should consider whether this opinion was sufficient for the Board to make an informed decision. The Court specifically instructed the Board to consider whether the reference to “multiple etiologies” took into account the veteran’s actual medical history. The Court faulted the Board for not addressing this instruction. It “remind[ed] the Board that it does not have an option about whether it must substantially comply with the remand instructions.” The Court vacated the Board decision on appeal and remanded for readjudication.
Victory for Veteran’s Back Disability Claim: Court Orders New VA Medical Opinion
In a recent case at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, we successfully secured a remand for our client, a veteran seeking service connection for a chronic low back disability stemming from an in-service motor vehicle accident. The court found that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals relied on an inadequate medical opinion and therefore ordered a new opinion.
The Board denied service connection for the veteran’s back condition, relying on a flawed 2020 VA opinion that concluded his back disability was unrelated to service. However, the VA examiner’s rationale only addressed the lack of chronic symptoms in service, ignoring the veteran’s documented in-service back injuries and later back pain. As established in Stefl v. Nicholson and Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, a medical opinion must fully consider all relevant facts and provide reasoned explanations to support its conclusions.
The court agreed that the Board erred by accepting a cursory opinion without thorough analysis, frustrating the review process. This remand requires a new medical opinion that carefully examines the direct connection between the veteran’s back condition and his in-service injuries, offering a complete and medically sound rationale.
This victory underscores the VA’s duty to provide veterans with comprehensive, fact-based medical assessments. We remain dedicated to holding the VA accountable in ensuring that veterans receive the thorough, fair evaluations they deserve for their service-connected conditions.
In a recent case, we secured a remand for our client from the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for a Total Disability Individual Unemployability (TDIU) claim. The court found that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for denying the claim.
The Board concluded that the veteran could perform unskilled labor like sorting or assembly work, despite significant psychiatric symptoms that affect focus, concentration, and social interaction. However, the Board did not explain how these symptoms wouldn’t impact such positions. The Board also failed to address the veteran’s December 2018 hospitalization for depression, which could impact employability, and it overlooked evidence that the veteran’s recent part-time work may only have been marginal.
This remand requires the Board to re-evaluate the veteran’s ability to maintain substantially gainful employment, considering the impact of his psychiatric symptoms on potential job types. It underscores the VA’s duty to provide clear and thorough reasoning when making disability determinations.
Our team remains committed to advocating for veterans’ rights and ensuring the VA considers all relevant factors in evaluating their disability claims.
