Caring. Effective. Efficient.

Client Win: CAVC #18-6857, Jordan v. Wilkie (Ask for BVA hearings, get BVA hearings)

Client Win: CAVC #18-6857, Jordan v. Wilkie (Ask for BVA hearings, get BVA hearings)

This case involves a veteran's right to BVA hearings. For years, the VA and BVA have wanted to limit veterans' ability to get a BVA hearing. 

Here's how the BVA does this.

The BVA remands a case on an appeal, tells the VA to get more evidence (typically adverse evidence) and the VA packs the file with adverse opinions, etc. When the veteran asks for a BVA hearing to review that evidence, the BVA wags its finger and says "No more BVA hearings. Only one hearing. Ever. But thanks for your service."

The Federal Circuit, in 2018, found that the BVA was wrong to deny a veteran's request for a BVA hearing. This is particularly going to be true when the Secretary stacks the deck and adds negative evidence to the veteran's file.  


Congress required that “[t]he Board shall decide any appeal only after affording the appellant an opportunity for a hearing.” 38 U.S.C. §7107(b). The Federal Circuit has interpreted Section 7107(b) and determined that the “[BVA] is not free to curate which appeals are entitled to “an opportunity for a hearing.” Cook v. Wilkie. (You can read about this precedential decision in Cook v. Wilkie by clicking here.

In this case, the Board of Veterans Appeals held a hearing on April 21, 2017, remanding the issues before it to the Regional Office for further development and readjudication. After that remand, the Secretary added two adverse C&P opinions and a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). The veteran requested a hearing in his VA Form 9.

Did the BVA err when it denied a BVA hearings request on the grounds that “[t]he law does not require that the Veteran be afforded a second hearing request merely because he requests one. Rather, he must demonstrate good cause.”


The VA Secretary, through his attorneys at the Office of General Counsel (OGC), agreed that the BVA erred.

There is NO good cause requirement to get  a hearing before the BVA under the legacy appeals system. If you ask for a BVA hearing, you get one. It's that simple

Even though this BVA decision denying the veteran's Board hearing request was issued before the Court issued its precedential decision in Cook v. Wilkie, the BVA still erred. When the Court interprets a statute like 38 U.S.C. 7107(b) BVA hearing requirement, it is not writing NEW law, but rather explaining what the law has always been.

The Board continues to violate this law, suggesting that the CAVC's orders are not a high priority for the BVA, or that there is a systemic flaw in the BVA training system in which BVA hearing officers are not able to learn about new law.

If you requested a BVA hearing and were denied one, click here to have  Attig | Steel take a look at your case.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Clifton A. Prince (link to cases involving attorney at

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

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge:  Alexandra P. Simpson (link to BVA attorney bio at

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Carol Ponton, Attorney (link to bio at Hill & Ponton website)

Date of BVA Decision: August 27, 2018

Date of CAVC Joint Motion to Remand:   December 12, 2019

Link to BVA Decision

Link to Joint Motion to Remand


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

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
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
  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
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