Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

In a recent win before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, we successfully secured a remand for our client, a veteran seeking service connection for a low back disability. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals had improperly denied the claim by relying on a flawed VA medical examination. This examination failed to consider our client’s obesity as a potential “intermediate step” linking his service-connected conditions and low back disability.

Our argument focused on the duty of the VA to provide an adequate medical examination. Citing Barr v. Nicholson and Acevedo v. Shinseki, we argued that the examination must offer sound medical reasoning based on accurate facts. The 2019 VA examination, however, attributed the veteran’s back issues to obesity without considering whether his service-connected conditions contributed to that obesity, thus failing the standard of a reasoned opinion.

VA’s attorneys agreed that the Board erred when it failed to consider this, referencing a 2017 VA General Counsel opinion that highlights obesity as an “intermediate step” in some service-connection cases. This opinion stated that if a service-connected condition, like our client’s Achilles tendon injury, limits exercise and causes obesity, that obesity may contribute to other health issues, including back disabilities.

The Board also overlooked key evidence of our client’s altered gait, which his private physician linked to further back problems. The court remanded the case, directing the Board to reassess the claim, factoring in obesity and gait-related issues.

This decision emphasizes the VA’s responsibility to thoroughly assess veterans’ disabilities and provide adequate support in their claims. We are honored to fight for veterans’ rights and ensure their sacrifices are acknowledged.

In a significant victory, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded a decision involving our client’s respiratory condition claim. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals had dismissed this claim without addressing an essential issue: our client’s claim for obstructive sleep apnea. This oversight denied our client fair consideration for benefits tied to this sleep condition.

The law requires the Board to provide a clear, thorough explanation for each decision, covering all significant facts and legal issues. However, the Board dismissed our client’s respiratory claim based solely on a 2021 award for bronchiolitis obliterans. It failed to address whether our client’s obstructive sleep apnea should have been included under the broader respiratory condition claim. This omission violates the VA’s duty to fully explore and understand each veteran’s claim.

We argued that obstructive sleep apnea should have been evaluated within the respiratory condition claim. This claim received specific attention in our April 2024 submission, where we argued for this inclusion. The Board, however, dismissed the respiratory claim, failing to acknowledge or address our argument. Established case law prohibits the Board from ignoring issues raised by counsel.

The Court’s ruling sends the case back to the Board, mandating a thorough review and a detailed explanation. This remand paves the way for a fair evaluation of our client’s sleep apnea claim, reinforcing veterans’ rights to comprehensive, just consideration of their claims.

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims recently remanded our client’s claim for a compensable rating for eczema. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals had denied this claim based on an inadequate medical examination that overlooked critical evidence.

When the VA provides a medical examination, it must be thorough, accurate, and based on reasoned medical judgment. However, the Board relied on a January 2020 VA examination that underreported the extent of our client’s eczema. The examiner recorded affected areas across her chest, neck, back, arms, and legs but did not detail the size or appearance of each patch. Despite observing multiple affected areas, the examiner concluded that less than five percent of her body was impacted without explaining this calculation.

Our client testified in 2018 and 2022 about widespread eczema, describing affected areas covering her chest, back, arms, legs, and stomach. However, the Board dismissed her statements, incorrectly assuming she lacked the competence to estimate the eczema’s coverage on her body. Her testimony, consistent with the examiner’s observations, clearly indicated a broader impact of eczema than the Board acknowledged. Part of our argument centered around the rule that veterans are competent to report their lay observations of medical conditions and symptoms.

The remand order requires the Board to secure a new, comprehensive examination that thoroughly assesses the full scope of our client’s eczema. The order was jointly drafted with attorneys for VA. This victory ensures a fair review of her claim and underscores the VA’s responsibility to accurately evaluate veterans’ disability claims, reinforcing the importance of complete and accurate medical examinations.

In a recent case involving spousal DIC benefits, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded a decision involving our client’s entitlement to Total Disability Individual Unemployability (TDIU). Here the client is the spouse of a deceased veteran. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals had denied our client’s TDIU claim without addressing substantial, favorable evidence related to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board must clearly explain its decisions, detailing its analysis of relevant evidence and explaining the reasoning behind its conclusions. In this case, however, the Board ignored critical evidence that demonstrated the impact of our client’s neurological impairments and urinary issues on his ability to maintain gainful employment.

We secured VA’s agreement that the Board’s decision relied too heavily on outdated medical records from 2012, disregarding later reports of worsening symptoms. These reports documented significant issues, including severe urinary incontinence, that conflicted with the Board’s conclusion that our client could perform sedentary work. The Board’s reliance on limited, inconsistent evidence violated its obligation to consider all relevant facts when evaluating a TDIU claim. By convincing VA’s attorneys of the Board’s error we were able to avoid a lengthy briefing process, thereby ensuring the soonest possible decision from VA on this claim.

With this remand, the Court has directed the Board to reexamine all available evidence and provide a thorough analysis. This decision underscores the importance of a fair, evidence-based evaluation of a veteran’s entitlement to TDIU benefits. Our victory paves the way for a more comprehensive review of our client’s claim, ensuring consideration of all relevant evidence regarding his employability.

In a recent win, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remanded our client’s case involving his Parkinson’s disease claim. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied his claim without addressing key issues raised in her Notice of Disagreement.

The Board must clearly explain its decisions and address all relevant issues presented in the record. However, it overlooked our client’s argument that the VA failed to evaluate other Parkinson’s symptoms beyond hand tremors. This oversight meant his other Parkinson’s-related impairments, despite being raised, went unaddressed by the Board.

Our client explicitly stated in her Notice of Disagreement that she sought evaluations for all symptoms associated with Parkinson’s. Despite this, the Board limited its analysis to hand tremors, disregarding other disabling manifestations. The law requires the Board to consider all relevant arguments, even those raised indirectly by the evidence.

The Court’s remand order requires the Board to address each of our client’s Parkinson’s-related symptoms, ensuring a comprehensive review. This victory underscores the importance of addressing all aspects of a veteran’s condition in VA claims, supporting a fair and complete evaluation process for those seeking disability benefits.

The Court vacated and remanded the Board’s decision denying the veteran a higher rating for a service-connected mental health condition and service connection for a cervical spine disorder. The Secretary agreed the Board failed to account for more severe mental health symptoms reported by VA’s own medical examiner. And we were finally able to correct years of VA mischaracterizing the veteran’s back claim. As early as 2014 the veteran filed a claim for “spine trauma.” In support, he submitted medical records showing a cervical spine condition. VA, to date, has never considered this claim but instead denied service-connection for a thoracolumbar back condition. This is despite the fact that the veteran never once claimed his lower back has a service-connected injury. We were happy to get this result for our client and look forward to VA finally seeing his upper back claim for what it is.

Our client, the veteran, filed a claim for service connection of a lower back disability. The Regional Office found in 2019 the client was involved in a motor vehicle accident while on active duty. The Board disagreed, but failed to properly rebut the favorable finding. To reject a previous favorable finding, such finding must be “rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). The Board cited to no such “clear and unmistakable evidence.” The Secretary agreed the Board erred and the parties jointly moved the Court to vacate the Board’s decision.

WHG appealed to the Court a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision that denied service connection for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). This claim was linked to the veteran’s service-connected generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder (MDD). The Court agreed to vacate the Board’s decision, emphasizing that the Board failed to ensure the VA met its duty to assist by providing an inadequate medical opinion.

The January 2024 VA opinion claimed that the veteran’s obesity was not aggravated by his mental health conditions. The examiner stated simply (and unhelpfully) that the veteran made a conscious decision to be obese. The parties agreed, however, that this simplistic view overlooked the veteran’s documented issues with low energy and motivation, which may be linked to his mental health conditions. The examiner’s omission rendered the VA opinion insufficient, as it did not consider the veteran’s comprehensive medical history.

The remand allows the VA to obtain a more thorough medical opinion that properly evaluates how the veteran’s service-connected conditions may impact his health. This case highlights the importance of a complete assessment of veterans’ claims, ensuring they receive fair evaluations for service-related disabilities. Veterans seeking assistance with similar claims can benefit from consulting experienced legal professionals.