Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Great win for our client after filing a brief challenging a Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ May 24, 2023, decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated the Board’s denial of service connection for a back disability and a sleep disorder. VA and its counsel, after reading our brief, agreed that the Board failed to provide an adequate explanation for its decision.

The Board erred by not addressing key evidence related to the back disability claim. Specifically, it overlooked a July 2006 statement where our client reported back problems for over 25 years. This evidence contradicted the Board’s claim that no post-service back complaints existed before February 2011.

Additionally, the Board failed to fully address whether snoring, as a symptom of a potential sleep disorder, warranted further examination. Although the Board acknowledged snoring, it failed to consider the October 2021 medical note suggesting sleep apnea. The Court remanded the case for proper evaluation of this evidence and ordered a thorough reassessment of the sleep disorder claim.

This remand will ensure that all relevant evidence is considered, improving the likelihood of a favorable outcome for our client.

Our firm successfully secured a remand for our client after the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated an August 21, 2023, decision by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The Board denied our client entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). Our CAVC attorneys convinced VA and its attorneys that that the Board failed to provide an adequate explanation for its decision, necessitating further review.

The Board dismissed a May 2023 vocational consultant’s report, which highlighted impairments in concentration due to our client’s pain. The Board claimed the consultant provided no evidence or rationale. However, the report explicitly referenced our client’s own statements about his concentration issues, which were tied to his service-connected disabilities. The Board failed to acknowledge this key evidence.

Additionally, the Board did not fully analyze whether our client could engage in sedentary work, as required by the Court’s precedent. Although the Board suggested administrative work as a possible option, it did not address whether our client’s physical limitations, including difficulty sitting for extended periods, would prevent such employment.

Another great win at the Court on behalf of our veteran clients!

WHG successfully secured a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in a case involving entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU). The Court vacated the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ July 8, 2023, decision and ordered the Board to readjudicate the case. The decision came after VA and its lawyers agreed the Board failed to provide an adequate explanation for denying TDIU.

The Board is required by 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) to provide a detailed written statement explaining its findings and conclusions. In this case, the Board improperly dismissed the lay statements made by the appellant and his wife. These statements explained the appellant’s inability to maintain employment due to service-connected disabilities, but the Board rejected them as “inconsistent with other evidence.”

However, the appellant consistently reported difficulties maintaining jobs due to psychological issues, such as frustration and anger, which the Board failed to address. The Court ruled that the Board did not adequately explain why it found these statements incredible, especially since multiple factors, including interpersonal issues, could have contributed to the employment challenges.

This remand ensures a proper review of the appellant’s claim for TDIU based on all relevant evidence, as required by law.

WHG secured a remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in a case involving entitlement to service connection for generalized anxiety with panic attacks. The Court vacated the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ November 1, 2022, decision, following our argument that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its denial.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1), the Board must provide a clear and comprehensive explanation of its decision, addressing all relevant evidence and legal provisions. In this case, the Board did not adequately discuss whether the appellant’s psychiatric condition was aggravated by her service-connected fibromyalgia. The record included multiple references to the connection between her anxiety and fibromyalgia, as noted in medical reports from 2016, 2018, and 2022. WHG was successful in convincing VA’s lawyers of this error, obviating the need to brief this for a decision by a judge. This saved the client the additional several months of delay the briefing process would add.

The Court remanded the case, instructing the Board to consider whether the appellant’s psychiatric condition is secondarily connected to her fibromyalgia. This ruling ensures a proper review of the evidence and requires the Board to fully address all theories of entitlement.

This victory highlights the importance of a thorough review of all evidence, particularly in cases involving complex medical conditions and secondary service connections.

VA and its attorneys agreed the Board erred when it denied our client a higher rating for his service-connected mental health condition. This resulted in a joint motion which avoided the lengthy briefing process and sent the issue back to the Board as quickly as possible.

Under the law, specifically the precedent set in Bankhead v. Shulkin, the VA must conduct a holistic analysis of a veteran’s mental health condition. This means assessing the severity, frequency, and duration of all symptoms and determining how they impact the veteran’s social and occupational functioning. The symptoms listed in the VA’s rating criteria are guides, not an exhaustive checklist.

In our client’s case, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals divided his symptoms into separate categories—such as mood, work, and relationships—and concluded there were deficiencies in only one area. This fragmented approach overlooked the combined effect of his symptoms on his daily life. Notably, the Board incorrectly stated there was “no deficiency in the area of mood,” despite medical records indicating depression and persistent negative emotions.

Furthermore, the Board failed to explain why his symptoms warranted only a 50% disability rating instead of a higher one that more accurately reflects his condition. VA and its attorneys agreed that the Board did not provide adequate reasons for its conclusions and did not apply the required holistic evaluation.

As a result, the case has been remanded, meaning the Board must re-examine our client’s claim using the correct legal standards. This outcome not only impacts our client but also reinforces the importance of comprehensive evaluations for all veterans with mental health disabilities.

If you or a loved one are facing challenges with a VA disability claim, especially involving mental health issues, our experienced team is here to help. We are committed to ensuring that veterans receive the benefits they have rightfully earned.

We are pleased to announce a significant victory for our client at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In a joint motion that avoided a lengthy briefing process, VA and its attorneys agreed that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons for denying service connection for our client’s leukemia on a direct basis.

Our client served nearly a year at Udorn Air Force Base in Thailand. During his service, he worked as a vehicle maintenance supply clerk, warehouse clerk, stock clerk, and driver. From June to September 1967, he served as a driver, a role that may have placed him near the base perimeter where herbicide exposure was likely.

The Board is required by law, specifically under Allday v. Brown, to provide a clear statement of reasons for its decisions. This ensures veterans understand the basis of the decision and allows for effective judicial review. In this case, the Board did not address whether our client’s duties as a driver exposed him to herbicides.

Moreover, the Department of Veterans Affairs did not fulfill its duty to assist. The VA did not obtain daily vehicle logs or records that could verify our client’s proximity to the perimeter. No inquiries were made to determine if his job responsibilities placed him close enough to the perimeter to warrant presumptive exposure to herbicides.

The court’s order mandates a remand for the Board to provide adequate reasons or bases for its denial and to address whether the VA satisfied its duty to assist. This outcome not only advances our client’s claim but also reinforces the rights of other veterans facing similar challenges.

If you or a loved one are struggling with a VA disability claim related to herbicide exposure in Thailand, our experienced team is here to help. We are dedicated to securing the benefits you rightfully deserve.

WHG is thrilled to announce a significant victory for our client at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. VA agreed that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals failed to address key favorable evidence regarding our client’s coronary artery disease (CAD) symptoms before May 24, 2022.

Our client, a dedicated veteran, has battled CAD since April 2014. The Board had denied a 60% disability rating for the period before May 24, 2022. They based their decision on a VA examination conducted on that date. The Board claimed there was no evidence showing the heart condition had worsened before then.

However, medical records tell a different story. In June 2016, a stress test showed a METs workload of 7.0. In August 2020, another evaluation indicated a METs workload of 4-6. These results suggest a more severe condition than the 10% rating accounts for.

Between 2019 and 2020, our client reported symptoms like shortness of breath and heart palpitations. These are critical indicators of worsening heart disease. In November 2022, a private physician, Dr. S.B., reviewed the medical records. He concluded that our client’s symptoms warranted a 60% rating prior to May 24, 2022.

The Board did not consider this substantial evidence. They failed to explain why they disregarded these findings. Under the law, specifically the precedent set in Allday v. Brown, the Board must provide clear reasons for its decisions. Ignoring relevant evidence violates this requirement.

The court’s order mandates a remand. This means the Board must re-evaluate our client’s case, considering all pertinent medical evidence. This outcome not only benefits our client but also reinforces the rights of other veterans facing similar challenges.

If you or a loved one struggle with a VA disability claim, especially regarding heart conditions, we are here to help. Our experienced team is committed to securing the benefits you rightfully deserve.

In a great win for our client, WHG convinced VA and its attorneys that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals made critical errors in denying our client’s fibromyalgia claim. The Board failed to provide adequate reasons for finding our client not credible and for dismissing a private medical opinion. Additionally, the Board relied on an inadequate VA medical examination. The result was a joint motion between the parties vacating the Board’s decision and remanding it for readjudication. This avoided a lengthy briefing process which would only add additional delay in reaching a favorable decision.

Board Failed to Properly Assess Credibility

The Board claimed that our client’s statements about experiencing pain since service were not credible. They based this on a November 2015 medical record stating he had “entire body aches” for one year. The Board accepted this duration as credible because it was provided during medical treatment.

However, the Board ignored other medical records. In October 2013, over a year earlier, our client reported chronic headaches, pain, and fatigue. During service, he also reported joint pain and swelling. All these statements were made while seeking medical care. The Board failed to reconcile these records with their finding, which undermined their conclusion.

Dismissal of Private Medical Opinion Without Adequate Explanation

The Board found a private medical examination less probative due to “inaccurate factual premises.” Yet, the private examiner included our client’s medical history, in-service complaints, and explained symptom manifestation. The examiner noted that fibromyalgia diagnoses are often delayed until other conditions are ruled out.

The Board did not explain how the examination was based on inaccurate facts. Rejecting a medical opinion without proper reasoning is a legal error the Board often commits. The Board must provide clear reasons when it rejects favorable evidence.

Reliance on an Inadequate VA Medical Examination

The Board relied on a February 2020 VA examination to deny the claim. The examiner stated, “The history and exam today are consistent with Fibromyalgia.” Yet, he also claimed there were no service records showing relevant symptoms, only “a few isolated joint pains.”

This contradiction raises questions about the examination’s adequacy. An adequate medical opinion must consider the veteran’s medical history and provide sound reasoning. The Board erred by relying on this inconsistent examination without addressing its flaws.

Court Orders Remand for Proper Evaluation

Due to these errors, the Court ordered the claim remanded. The Board must reassess our client’s credibility and properly evaluate the private medical opinion. This victory brings our client closer to receiving the benefits he deserves.

We Can Help with Your VA Disability Claim

If you or a loved one struggle with a VA disability claim, we are here to help. Our experienced team is dedicated to securing the benefits veterans rightfully deserve.