Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Our client recently secured a key victory before the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. He served in the U.S. Army from 1994 to 1996 and from 1999 to 2012. In 2011, while still in service, our client filed a claim for a left foot disability following a bunionectomy. The VA initially granted a noncompensable rating for the scar caused by this condition.

The veteran continued to experience pain in his left foot and filed for a higher evaluation. The VA denied his request, despite his consistent reports of pain since service. In 2018, a VA examiner confirmed that the veteran’s scar caused a “near constant ache” and limited movement in his left toe. Based on this exam, the VA increased his rating to 10%, effective October 2018. However, the Board failed to assign the proper effective date. This was one reason we appealed the decision to the Court.

The Court found that the Board failed to address evidence of his painful scar from as early as 2011. It also neglected to consider that the veteran’s 2013 filing could be treated as a Notice of Disagreement with the VA’s earlier decision. The Court remanded the case for reconsideration of an earlier effective date for the veteran’s 10% rating.

This win reinforces the importance of ensuring that the VA properly evaluates veterans’ claims for service-connected disabilities. Contact our office for help with your VA disability claim.

Our firm recently secured a critical victory for a U.S. Army veteran at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). The Court set aside a March 2022 Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision, which had denied the veteran’s claim for VA disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychiatric disorders.

The Court found that the Board failed to properly fulfill its duty to assist and did not follow a previous Court remand order. This case involves claims of PTSD stemming from several in-service stressors, including threats from fellow soldiers and witnessing traumatic events. The Board had denied his claim by stating that his stressors lacked verification and dismissed his lay statements as inconsistent.

However, the Court determined that the Board did not adequately help the veteran corroborate his stressors. The VA had prematurely ended efforts to gather records without seeking additional details. The Court also found that the Board failed to address critical evidence, including a 1981 hospitalization for possible suicidal ideation, which could indicate in-service psychiatric symptoms.

This remand ensures that our client’s case will receive the attention it deserves, with the Board now required to critically examine his claims and fulfill its duty to assist in developing the necessary evidence. This decision highlights the importance of persistence and the veteran-friendly nature of VA claims processes. We remain committed to advocating for veterans and ensuring they receive the benefits they have earned.

Veterans dealing with denied claims should not hesitate to seek experienced legal counsel to ensure all relevant evidence is considered.

WHG achieved a remand for our client due to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ failure to fulfill its duty to assist and comply with a prior remand order. The Board did not adequately address whether the veteran’s PTSD claim warranted further evidence gathering or corroboration of his in-service stressors.

The court emphasized that VA’s duty to assist includes making reasonable efforts to obtain all relevant records. In this case, the VA dismissed the veteran’s PTSD claim because it deemed his stressor details insufficiently specific. However, under Gagne v. McDonald, the VA has an obligation to make multiple requests for records, even if the veteran cannot narrow the dates to a precise period.

The Board also neglected to consider new evidence provided since 2010, which might have been specific enough to allow further investigation. In addition, the Board did not comply with a 2021 joint motion for remand that directed it to examine whether the veteran’s 1981 hospitalization for insomnia was linked to his mental health condition. The Board’s decision merely repeated its prior findings without addressing this key issue.

The court’s remand directs the Board to critically reexamine the veteran’s claims, seek additional records as needed, and fully assess the evidence of his in-service mental health symptoms. This case highlights the importance of VA’s duty to assist veterans by gathering all relevant records and thoroughly examining evidence before issuing a decision. We remain committed to fighting for veterans’ rights to a fair and complete review of their claims.

Victory for Veteran’s GERD Rating Claim: Court Orders Remand for Clear Rating Criteria

In a recent win at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, we achieved a remand for our client, a Vietnam veteran, on his claim for a higher rating for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The Board of Veterans’ Appeals improperly denied the veteran’s request for an increased rating by failing to define essential terms in the rating criteria, leaving the veteran without a clear explanation.

The Board rated the veteran’s GERD at 10%, yet did not explain what “persistently recurrent” episodes of epigastric distress meant, despite evidence of his regular GERD symptoms, including heartburn, choking, and severe pain. The Board also ignored a 2021 medical opinion describing “severe impairment” of his health due to GERD symptoms, without clarifying what qualifies as “considerable impairment of health.” When the VA uses subjective terms in its rating criteria, it must provide definitions to enable clear understanding of a veteran’s rating.

The court agreed that the Board’s failure to define these terms hindered both the veteran’s ability to understand his rating and the Court’s review of the decision. This remand requires the Board to clarify the criteria terms, reassess the evidence, and issue a well-supported decision.

This ruling highlights the VA’s duty to transparently explain rating criteria, ensuring veterans receive fair and comprehensible decisions. We are proud to fight for veterans and demand accurate, transparent evaluations for their service-connected conditions.

Court Remands Case for Higher Ratings on Veteran’s Back Condition and Radiculopathy

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims recently vacated and remanded a Board decision denying increased ratings for a veteran’s intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The veteran sought ratings exceeding 10% for both conditions, arguing the Board failed to address key evidence.

Background
The veteran, who served from April 1999 to March 2004, filed a claim for a back condition in October 2015. The VA granted service connection with a noncompensable rating, which was later increased to 10%. Additional ratings for bilateral radiculopathy were assigned at 10% each, effective October 2018. The veteran appealed, seeking higher ratings and earlier effective dates for the radiculopathy.

Key Evidence and Issues
1. Inadequate Consideration of Flare-Up Symptoms:
The Board ignored the veteran’s testimony about immobilizing flare-ups and did not consider how these affect his functional ability.

2. Overlooked Private Medical Opinion:
An April 2022 private opinion described advanced IVDS symptoms warranting a 20% rating. The Board failed to address this evidence.

3. Failure to Define “Mild” and “Moderate”:
For radiculopathy, the Board did not clarify the criteria distinguishing mild from moderate symptoms, rendering its decision unreviewable.

Court Findings
The Court found that the Board’s reasoning was inadequate and unsupported by the evidence. It agreed with the veteran that the Board must:

– Reassess the private medical opinion on advanced IVDS.
– Define “mild” and “moderate” paralysis for radiculopathy ratings.
– Evaluate the veteran’s testimony and the impact of flare-ups.

Outcome
The Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling highlights the importance of thorough evidence analysis and clear reasoning in veterans’ disability cases.