Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Our firm successfully challenged a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision that denied an increased rating for a veteran’s left medial tibial plateau condition following a stress fracture. We appealed to CAVC because the Board failed to adequately consider critical evidence regarding the veteran’s use of knee braces. The Court agreed to vacate the Board’s decision and remand the case for further review.

The remand is essential for the Board to address pertinent medical records, including outpatient treatment notes from November 2018, July 2019, and December 2020 which documented the veteran’s need for knee braces to enhance stability and mobility.

This case underscores the importance of thorough evidence consideration in veterans’ claims and the right to a fair reassessment. Veterans seeking increased disability ratings should be aware that all relevant evidence must be evaluated for accurate decisions. Stay informed about your rights and options by consulting experienced legal professionals specializing in veterans’ law.

The Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to vacate a November 28, 2023, decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals that denied our client entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The parties identified several critical errors in the Board’s reasoning, particularly regarding the evaluation of a March 22, 2020 private vocational assessment.

The Board assigned less probative value to this assessment mainly because it occurred via a phone interview rather than an in-person meeting. However, the Court highlighted that while the Board can consider the format of the assessment, it must provide sufficient reasons for deeming a phone interview less credible. The vocational expert’s findings included chronic pain affecting the veteran’s concentration and the impact of his disabilities on employment capabilities, which the Board failed to adequately address.

Additionally, the Board overlooked how the veteran’s constant pain and need for a walker might affect his ability to perform even sedentary work. This oversight warranted a remand for a thorough reevaluation of the vocational assessment and the impact of the veteran’s conditions on his employability. Because of this remand the Board now has the opportunity to properly evaluate the private vocational assessment. Veterans seeking TDIU should understand the importance of comprehensive evaluations in their claims.

The Court ordered a remand of our client’s total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) claim. The Secretary agreed there were errors in the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ decision. Specifically, the Board failed to provide clear reasons for denying Helms’ TDIU based on his service-connected heart disability.

The Court highlighted that the Board recognized Helms met the economic component for unemployability. And the Board acknowledged the veteran’s service-connected disabilities prevented him from doing physical labor. But the Board failed to address his ability to engage in sedentary employment. This inconsistency required further examination on remand, especially regarding the extraschedular entitlement to TDIU. The Court emphasized that the Board must discuss how sedentary work applies to Helms, considering his work history and education.

This remand allows us to provide additional argument to support his claim. It also requires the Board to clarify its reasons for its findings and act quickly on the case. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of thorough evaluations in TDIU claims for veterans.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims agreed to vacate a May 3, 2023, decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Board had denied Mr. Walker’s entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The Board found no evidence of hypertension during or shortly after the veteran’s exit from service. But our firm struck an agreement with counsel for VA that the Board failed to consider key evidence of in-service blood pressure readings that supported the claim.

The Court remanded the case for further review, requiring the Board to address specific evidence, including multiple high blood pressure readings from the client’s military records. These included readings as high as 146/96 and a notation of hypertension. The remand ensures that our client’s claim for service-connected hypertension will receive a more thorough evaluation.

This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that all relevant medical evidence is considered in veterans’ claims. Our team is proud to have secured this favorable outcome and remains committed to fighting for our clients’ rights to veterans’ benefits.

Our firm recently secured a favorable outcome for our client in a veterans’ disability case involving an acquired psychiatric disorder. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims agreed to vacate the Board’s denial of our client’s claim for service connection for an unspecified mood disorder. The Court remanded the case back to the Board of Veteran’s Appeals for further review.

The remand was granted because the Board improperly made a medical determination in finding our client’s reports of psychiatric symptoms not credible. The Board is not competent to make findings that require some medical expertise. Rather, the Board must point to medical evidence to support such finding. This failure to substantiate its findings led the Court to require further review.

This ruling ensures that our client will receive a fair reassessment of their claim for service-connected psychiatric disability. Our team is proud to have helped secure this victory and remains dedicated to fighting for veterans’ rights to fair evaluations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision that denied our client service connection for migraine headaches. The Court remanded the case, demanding a closer look at the facts.

Why the remand? The Board failed to explain why they didn’t believe our client’s testimony. He testified that he didn’t suffer from chronic migraines before his military service, contrary to the Board’s conclusions. The Board leaned heavily on his past medical reports, but conveniently skipped over his detailed explanation from a March 2023 hearing. Our client clarified that while he once checked “yes” for headaches on a form, that didn’t mean he had chronic migraines before service. Those started after a severe heatstroke incident during service.

The joint motion reminds the Board that they need to address all evidence, not just cherry-pick facts that suit their conclusion. We’re hopeful that this remand will lead to the justice our client deserves—because fighting migraines is tough enough without battling bureaucracy too!

Our CAVC team successfully secured a remand for a veteran challenging the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ October 24, 2023, decision regarding knee instability ratings. The Board denied a separate disability rating for right knee instability prior to February 1, 2021, and a rating exceeding 10 percent for left knee instability before February 7, 2021. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated these portions of the decision and remanded the matters for readjudication.

The remand was necessary because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. Specifically, the Board did not address the veteran’s August 2016 statement describing persistent left knee instability. The Board also did not explain its consideration of an April 2018 MRI showing worsening right knee symptoms. This omission prevented proper review and understanding of the Board’s findings. Our attorneys were able to convince VA’s attorneys to agree to a remand rather than brief the issue to a judge.

The Court’s ruling ensures that all relevant evidence will be thoroughly considered on remand, improving the chances for a fair resolution of the veteran’s claims.