HadIt.com For Veterans Who've Had It With The VA

For Veterans Who've Had It With The VA

Uncategorized

Single Judge; reason and bases argument; As with any finding on a material issue of fact or law, the Board must support its determination with an adequate statement of reasons or bases that enables a claimant to understand the precise basis for its decision and facilitates review in this Court.[38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 57] The statement of reasons or bases must explain the Board’s reasons for discounting favorable evidence,[Thompson v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 187, 188 (2000)] discuss all issues raised by the claimant or the evidence of record,[Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet.App. 545, 552 (2008), aff’d sub nom. Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009)] and discuss all provisions of law and regulation where they are made “potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record.”[Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 593 (1991)];

Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-3686KYLE A. KRIEGER, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before DAVIS, Senior Judge.1MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent.DAVIS, Senior Judge: U.S. Marine Corps veteran Kyle A. … [Read more...] about Single Judge; reason and bases argument; As with any finding on a material issue of fact or law, the Board must support its determination with an adequate statement of reasons or bases that enables a claimant to understand the precise basis for its decision and facilitates review in this Court.[38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 57] The statement of reasons or bases must explain the Board’s reasons for discounting favorable evidence,[Thompson v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 187, 188 (2000)] discuss all issues raised by the claimant or the evidence of record,[Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet.App. 545, 552 (2008), aff’d sub nom. Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009)] and discuss all provisions of law and regulation where they are made “potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record.”[Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 593 (1991)];

Single Judge; lay statements establish exposure to Agent Orange; AO; A veteran who is ineligible for presumptive herbicide exposure may nonetheless show entitlement to benefits if the veteran can establish actual or direct herbicide exposure. See McKinney v. McDonald, 796 F.3d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Once exposure has been established, certain listed medical conditions, including heart disease, are presumptively service connected. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2020);

Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNO. 19-2500ARNOLD W. WINSTON, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before PIETSCH, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent.PIETSCH, Judge: Arnold W. Winston appeals through counsel a … [Read more...] about Single Judge; lay statements establish exposure to Agent Orange; AO; A veteran who is ineligible for presumptive herbicide exposure may nonetheless show entitlement to benefits if the veteran can establish actual or direct herbicide exposure. See McKinney v. McDonald, 796 F.3d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Once exposure has been established, certain listed medical conditions, including heart disease, are presumptively service connected. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (2020);

Mote v. Wilkie, No. 2019-2367(Decided: September 28, 2020); Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where we replaced the Veterans Court’s test for evaluating an unreasonable-delay mandamus petition with the standard articulated in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“TRAC”); Veterans Court to conduct a TRAC analysis in the first instance;

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit EUGENIA MOTE, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee 2019-2367 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 16-2506, Senior Judge Mary J. Schoelen.__________ Decided: September 28, 2020 __________CHARLES MCCLOUD, Williams & Connolly LLP, … [Read more...] about Mote v. Wilkie, No. 2019-2367(Decided: September 28, 2020); Martin v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where we replaced the Veterans Court’s test for evaluating an unreasonable-delay mandamus petition with the standard articulated in Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“TRAC”); Veterans Court to conduct a TRAC analysis in the first instance;

Department of Veterans Affairs Board of Veterans’ Appeals Annual Report; Fiscal Year (FY) 2019; caseflow; VACOLS; Board Interactive Decision Template (IDT);

In FY 2019, the Board implemented Caseflow (e.g., Caseflow Intake, Caseflow Queue) and hearing scheduling (Caseflow Hearing Schedule) in support of AMA activities. Basic functionality for both of these modules was available for initial AMA implementation, with general improvements and reporting functionality added over the course of FY 2019. After initial Caseflow … [Read more...] about Department of Veterans Affairs Board of Veterans’ Appeals Annual Report; Fiscal Year (FY) 2019; caseflow; VACOLS; Board Interactive Decision Template (IDT);