Romero v. Wilkie, No. 19-3687 (Argued October 15, 2020 Decided November 20, 2020); presumption of regularity—how it may be triggered as well as rebutted; substantial evidence of a widespread problem with VA not mailing correspondence; Link to original post Advertisements Share Tweet Pin Email Share this: RelatedFederal Circuit; Presumption of Regularity; We reject Mr. Cones’ argument that if the presumption of regularity is rebutted, the VA is required to provide “direct” evidence of mailing. It is well established that circumstantial evidence (here, evidence of the VA’s mailing procedures) can be sufficient to prove a fact; direct evidence is not necessary. See, e.g., United States v. C.H. Robinson Co., 760 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Moleculon Rsch. Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1272 (Fed. Cir. 1986);September 2, 2020In "Law Cases"Francway v. Wilkie, No. 2018-2136(Decided: July 23, 2019); Rizzo v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1288, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2009); presumption of competency;July 24, 2019In "Latest Posts VA Disability Claims Community"FedCir; Simmons v. Wilkie, No. 2019-1519(Decided: July 17, 2020); failure to apply the presumptions of soundness and service connection is not per se prejudicial; 38 U.S.C. § 1111; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 105(a); Neither the presumption of soundness nor the presumption of service connection, however, is relevant to the third requirement, in which the veteran must show that the in-service injury or disease is causally related to the veteran’s current disability. Holton, 557 F.3d at 1367;July 17, 2020In "Law Cases"Read the full thread below Romero v. Wilkie, No. 19-3687 (Argued October 15, 2020 Decided November 20, 2020); presumption of regularity-how it may be triggered as well as rebutted; substantial evidence of a widespread problem with VA not mailing correspondence;Visit the post for more.