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

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