Caring. Effective. Efficient.

BVA failed to address favorable opinion for service connection of a hip disability

BVA failed to address favorable opinion for service connection of a hip disability

(December 5, 2016) This case involves a BVA denial of service connection of a hip disability.

Because the  Office of General Counsel did not agree there was remandable error in regards to the BVA's failure to grant service connection of a hip disability, this appeal was fully briefed to the CAVC.

After the briefs, CAVC Judge Kasold wrote a single judge decision finding that when it denied service connection of a hip disability, the BVA erred when it failed to consider or discuss an April 2012 private medical opinion that the veteran's in-service duties likely caused his current hip disability.

The BVA must correctly apply the law, provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determinations. Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369 (1998). To be adequate, a BVA decision must  enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for its decision, as well as to facilitate review in the CAVC. Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517 (1995) 

The CAVC vacated the BVA decision and remanded it back to the BVA to consider the evidence it overlooked in the veteran's claim for service connection of a hip disability.

Does this case sound like your VA Rating Decision or BVA Decision? If so, click here to have  Attig | Steel take a look at your case.

Link to the BVA Decision on CAVC Website.

Link to the CAVC Memorandum Decision

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Brent A. Bowker

Veteran Representation at CAVC: Chris Attig (link to bio)

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge:Judge Bruce E. Kasold (link to bio)

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge: L.M. Barnard

Regional Office: Little Rock, Arkansas, VA Regional Office

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A. 

Date of BVA Decision: October 23, 2014

Date of CAVC Judgment on Remand:  December 5, 2016

Recent Cases

This case involves an Army veteran who served on active duty in 1991 and then from 2008 to 2009 who was seeking a service-connected major depressive disorder rating in excess of 30%. The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON… Read More
This case involves a survivor’s claim for entitlement to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). The appellant’s late-husband served in the US Air Force from 1964 – 1984, and passed away from a rare form of non-Hodgkins lymphom… Read More
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… Read More

See More Appellate Results

Taking Point! Blog

Mar
2
In January 2021, the loss of use of a reproductive organ for SMC purposes was the focus of a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Bria v. Wilkie.   The panel consisted of Judge Mere… Read More
Feb
26
In January 2021, the VA rating for prostate cancer was the focus of a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Bailey v. Wilkie.   The panel consisted of Chief Judge Bartley (who… Read More
Feb
26
  Bold and unapologetically honest, Pam Keith is a refreshing political voice you need to follow right now.  She smoothly articulates the most rocky and controversial topics of our time.  It is no surprise that this attorney with 25 years of expe… Read More
Feb
12
In November 2020, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Holmes v. Wilkie.   In it, the Court laid out a road map for Veterans trying to get the correct VA rating for migraines… Read More

Read the "Taking Point!" Blog