Caring. Effective. Efficient.

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-2665, Johns v. McDonough (BVA wrong to deny earlier PTSD effective date)

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-2665, Johns v. McDonough (BVA wrong to deny earlier PTSD effective date)

This case involves a Marine Corps veteran (1966 to 1969) who was seeking an earlier effective date for his service connected PTSD claim. The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand.

ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (BVA wrong to deny earlier PTSD effective date).

The general PTSD effective date rule is that your award is effective the later of the date of the claim and the date the entitlement arose. 38 C.F.R. §3.400. However, there are a lot of exceptions that allow for an earlier PTSD effective date.

One of those exceptions is based on the discover of new and relevant service records. If at any time after the VA issues a decision on a claim, the VA receives or associates with the claims file new and relevant service records that were not in the file when the VA first decided the claim, the VA must reconsider that claim. 38 C.F.R. §3.156(c). 

RESOLUTION AT THE CAVC.

The veteran appealed the BVA's denial of a PTSD effective date earlier than December 2012. The BVA found that a 1971 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for PTSD was final, and that the 1971 claim date could not serve as the PTSD effective date. 

However, it was only after additional service records were added to the record that the veteran was granted service connection for PTSD. The BVA did not consider whether 38 C.F.R. §3.156(c) applied; it failed to consider whether the PTSD effective date could be the date underlying the 1971 rating decision based on the addition of new and relevant service records to the file.

The parties agreed that the BVA erred, and that remand to the BVA was proper, because the BVA incorrectly applied the law. Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369, 374 (1998).

If you believe you are entitled to a PTSD effective date earlier than the one the BVA or VA assigned, and would like legal representation by an accredited VA attorney to appeal the decision to the BVA or the CAVC, click here to have  Attig | Curran | Steel take a look at your case.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Jacqueline Kerin (link to attorney's bio on LinkedIn)

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

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge:  J. Parker (link to bio on Campbell University website)

Attorney for the BVA: D. Constantino

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Carol Ponton (link to attorney's cases with our firm)

Date of BVA Decision: December 19, 2019

Date of CAVC Joint Motion to Remand: December 16, 2020   

Link to BVA Decision

Link to CAVC Joint Motion to Remand

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