Caring. Effective. Efficient.

CAVC: Survivor substitution law allows vet's survivor to continue CUE claim

CAVC: Survivor substitution law allows vet's survivor to continue CUE claim

This case involves the issue of whether a World War II veteran's survivor can substitute into her deceased husband's CUE Claims that pending - for nearly 2 decades - at the time of his death death.

Before he died in 2010, a World War II Veteran had filed a CUE claim to revise 1989 and 1992 BVA decisions that denied him an earlier effective date based on Clear and Unmistakeable Error (CUE).

When he passed away, his surviving spouse attempted to take advantage of the VA's survivor substitution law  and appear as a substitute claimant into the appeal to continue it for him, as it was still pending at his death.

38 U.S.C. § 5121A is the primary statute regarding the survivor substitution law, and provides that “[i]f a claimant dies while a claim for any benefit under a law administered by the Secretary, or an appeal of a decision with respect to such a claim, is pending, a living person who would be eligible to receive accrued benefits due to the claimant under section 5121(a) of this title may, not later than one year after the date of the death of such claimant, file a request to be substituted as the claimant for the purposes of processing the claim to completion.”

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims found the BVA was legally wrong under the survivor substitution law when it decided a survivor cannot substitute into a CUE claim pending at the veteran's death. Padgett v. Nicholson, 473 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(the Federal Circuit allowed a surviving spouse to substitute on a veteran's appeal to the Court, in part, because the Veteran had a claim pending at the time of death); Rusick v. Gibson, 760 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (the Federal Circuit recognizes that “[38 U.S.C. §] 5121A might now allow a survivor to substitute on a pending CUE claim that the veteran had filed before his death . . . ”)

The BVA also — incorrectly — decided that the surviving spouse's request to substitute into the appeal was not "at issue", even though it was clearly raised by the record.

On a Joint motion for remand, the CAVC vacated the BVA decision and remanded it back to the BVA to correctly apply the survivor substitution law.

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 Joint Motion to Remand the CAVC Website.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Anthony D. Ortiz

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

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge: K. Millikan

Regional Office: New Orleans, Louisiana, VA Regional Office

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Chris Attig (Link to BVA Appeals Attorney Representation Information)

Date of BVA Decision: February 3, 2015

Date of CAVC Judgment on Remand: February 17, 2016

Taking Point! Blog

Oct
26
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
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
27
  While on our way to the nutcracker audition at the local theatre I asked my 9-year-old daughter how her day went at school. “It was okay.  We had another active shooter drill.  When the drill started, I had to run behind and under my teacher… Read More
May
23
After years of exploring different fields, I’ve found purpose-driven work here, at Attig | Curran | Steel.   There are a lot of variables in the experience of “happy.” It is difficult to keep it continuous.  Do I feel happy when my kids… Read More

Read the "Taking Point!" Blog

Recent Cases

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
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
This case involves the BVA’s failure to comply with a Veterans Court Order in a January 2020 Memorandum Decision. The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (BVA fails to comply with Veterans Court Ord… Read More

See More Appellate Results