CAVC Results

WHG is thrilled to announce a recent victory for our client at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. VA agreed the Board erred in denying our client a disability rating higher than 50% for his mental health condition.

Board Failed to Apply Proper Legal Analysis

The Board did not properly analyze our client’s symptoms under the legal standards set by Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki. This case requires a two-step process to evaluate mental disorder claims. First, determine if the veteran has symptoms listed in the higher rating criteria or similar ones. Second, assess whether these symptoms cause the level of impairment specified for that rating.

Symptoms Overlooked or Misinterpreted

The Board focused on symptoms our client did not exhibit, such as suicidal ideation. It failed to evaluate the severity, frequency, and duration of the symptoms he did have. Our client experienced verbal aggression, irritability, and social withdrawal. The Board dismissed these symptoms because they did not exactly match the examples listed in the 70% rating criteria.

Inadequate Consideration of Impaired Impulse Control

Our client reported verbal aggression toward his girlfriend and had an incident leading to his arrest. The Board incorrectly concluded that, without physical violence, these symptoms did not indicate impaired impulse control. However, the criteria include unprovoked irritability with periods of violence as examples, not requirements.

Board Relied on an Inadequate VA Examination

WHG also argued that the Board based its decision on a 2017 VA examination that lacked detail about our client’s symptoms. The examiner provided minimal information and did not discuss how the symptoms affected his occupational or social functioning. This inadequate examination failed to inform the Board fully about the severity of our client’s condition. We will continue to pursue this argument before the Board.

What This Means for Our Client

The Court’s decision mandates a remand for the Board to reassess our client’s claim properly. The Board must evaluate his symptoms according to the correct legal standards and consider whether they warrant a higher disability rating.

We Are Here to Help

If you or a loved one believe the VA has unfairly rated your disability, we can help. Our experienced team is dedicated to securing the benefits you rightfully deserve.

WHG is proud to announce a significant victory for our client at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. We avoided a lengthy briefing process and convinced VA and its lawyers that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals erred by not addressing the 2019 testimony of our client and his wife.

Board Failed to Provide Adequate Reasons or Bases

The law requires the Board to provide a written statement of reasons or bases for its findings on all material issues. This ensures that the claimant understands the precise basis for the Board’s decision and facilitates judicial review.

In this case, the Board did not discuss the September 2019 testimony from our client and his wife. Their testimony detailed severe symptoms experienced throughout the period on appeal, which are relevant to the veteran’s disability rating.

Key Testimony Overlooked

Our client’s wife testified about his struggles with memory, including forgetting locations while driving and missing important dates. She also reported that he needed constant reminders to maintain personal hygiene and that he experienced daily hallucinations.

She described his hallucinations as him talking to himself and gesturing as if in conversation with others. She also testified about his suicidal ideation and instances where he expressed a desire to “end it.”

Our client confirmed these symptoms during his testimony. He discussed his hallucinations, memory issues, and recurrent thoughts of suicide.

Court Orders Remand for Proper Evaluation

The Board failed to consider this crucial testimony when assessing whether the veteran’s symptoms warranted a higher disability rating. By not addressing this evidence, the Board did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision.

The Court has remanded the case, requiring the Board to properly address the testimony and provide sufficient reasons for its determinations.

WHG Stands Ready to Help

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

WHG scored another win for our client at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The Department of Veterans Affairs and its attorneys agreed that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals failed to properly evaluate our client’s statements about ongoing back pain since service. This oversight impacted the denial of service connection for his degenerative arthritis of the spine.

Board Overlooked Veteran’s Continuous Symptoms

Our client reported back pain during military service and consistently afterward. Medical records show he expressed back pain since 1992. The Board acknowledged his in-service complaints but didn’t adequately assess his statements about continuous symptoms.

Instead, the Board relied on three VA examinations from June 2017, December 2019, and July 2020. These examinations dismissed his reports and focused on the absence of medical records immediately after service.

Inadequate VA Examinations Ignored Key Evidence

The VA examiners concluded that his back condition wasn’t service-connected. They based their opinions on the lack of major injuries in service and no continuous treatment records.

However, they failed to consider our client’s consistent reports of back pain since service. They also improperly relied on the absence of medical records, which isn’t a valid reason under the law.

Court Orders Remand for Proper Evaluation

VA’s attorneys agreed that the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons for its decision. The Board didn’t properly analyze the credibility and value of our client’s statements. Upon remand, we will also argue that the VA examinations were inadequate because they ignored his reports of persistent symptoms.

The Board must now reassess our client’s claim, properly consider his statements, and potentially obtain a new, adequate medical examination.

We Can Help with Your VA Disability Claim

If you or a loved one face challenges with a VA disability claim, we are here to help. Our experienced team is dedicated 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.

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.

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.