Caring. Effective. Efficient.

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-4843, C.Smith v. McDonough (Agent Orange exposure in Thailand)

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-4843, C.Smith v. McDonough (Agent Orange exposure in Thailand)

This case involved a US Army veteran (1967 to 1971) who was seeking service connection for hypertension, congestive heart failure, Type II diabetes, stroke, and atrial fibrillation due to agent orange exposure in Thailand during the Vietnam war.

The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand.

ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (Agent Orange exposure in Thailand).

The BVA is required to provide a statement of adequate reasons and bases about its findings of fact and conclusions of law on all material issues. 38 U.S.C. §7104(d). 

The BVA is also required to analyze the probative value of the evidence, account for evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and explain why it rejects favorable evidence. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995).

In this case the BVA denied service connection for the veteran's disabilities due to herbicide exposure, specifically agent orange exposure in Thailand at the Uda Poa Royal Thai Air Force Base in Thailand. 

RESOLUTION AT THE CAVC.

The veteran told the BVA that he had also experienced agent orange exposure in Thailand at the U-Tapao Royal Thai Air Force Base during the Vietnam war.

Because the BVA did not provide any analysis regarding the veteran's allegations that he was also exposed to agent orange at U-Tapao RTAFB, the BVA committed what is called a reasons and bases error. The BVA did not provide reasons and bases for ignoring evidence favorable to the veteran.

If the VA or the BVA denied you   for disabilities you believe resulted from exposure to agent orange in Thailand during the Vietnam war, and if you would like to discuss legal representation in your appeal of that BVA or VA rating decision, click here to have  Attig | Curran | Steel take a look at your case.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Colin E. Tansits (link to attorney's bio on LinkedIn)

Veteran Representation at CAVC: Alexandra Curran (link to bio)

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge:  R. Erdheim

Attorney for the BVA: D. Houle

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Sarah K. Hill (Hill and Ponton) (Link to attorney's appeals handled by Attig | Curran | Steel)

Date of BVA Decision: March 16, 2020

Date of CAVC Joint Motion to Remand:   February 16, 2021

Link to BVA Decision

Link to CAVC Memorandum Decision

 

Taking Point! Blog

Oct
26
8 Reasons to Choose Attig | Curran |Steel to handle your Veterans Court appeals.
October 26th, 2022
If you are an agent, VSO, or attorney, you have a tough decision under AMA when the BVA issues a denial of your client’s benefits. On one hand, you can file a supplemental claim. On the other, you can file an appeal to the US Court of Ap… Read More
Jun
3
Action items for veterans who want to lead on gun control.
June 3rd, 2022
I really can’t take it anymore. I’m sure many like you feel the same way. Every time another child with a military weapon ambushes a school full of children, I am overwhelmed with emotions that have no outlet. I can’t even process… Read More
May
18
Four standards of review at the Veterans Court.
May 18th, 2022
When appellate courts review the decisions of lower courts – or in administrative law where a Court like the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) reviews the decisions of the BVA, an administrative tribunal – they use “… Read More
May
16
A Tale of Two Veterans.
May 16th, 2022
Let me tell you the story of two veterans. The first veteran – we’ll call him Jim – claimed he was exposed to herbicides – Agent Orange – outside of the Republic of Vietnam. After the VA spent decades denying his claim,… Read More

Read the "Taking Point!" Blog

Recent Cases

Client Win: CAVC No. 21-4029 (BVA fails to consider earlier effective date under §3.156(c).)
This case involves the BVA’s failure to address an argument explicitly raised before it: whether a veteran is entitled to an earlier effective date under 38 C.F.R. 3.156(c) when service  medical records are added to the file after the original… Read More
Client Win: CAVC No. 21-2655, (BVA overlooked evidence of suicidal ideation in claim for an increased PTSD rating)
This case involves the BVA judge’s inadequate reasoning of a denial of a veteran’s claim for an increased rating for PTSD.   The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (BVA overlooked evidence… Read More
Client Win: CAVC No. 21-0394, (BVA erred in denying past-due benefits in claim for an increased rating)
This case involves the BVA judge’s inadequate reasoning of his denial of a veteran’s past-due benefits in a claim for an increased rating due to an increase in the severity of the veteran’s PTSD. The appeal was resolved through a jo… Read More

See More Appellate Results