Skip to main contentSkip to navigation
Attig Steel, PLLC

Attig Steel, PLLC
Menu
  • Home
  • Our Team
    • Chrys Attig
    • Jennifer Steel
    • Leslie D. Gaines
    • Jon C. Heiden
  • Our Services
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Board of Veterans Appeals
    • Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
    • Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Our Cases
  • Contact Us
Caring. Effective. Efficient.
Home › clearly erroneous

» clearly erroneous

Four standards of review at the Veterans Court.

When appellate courts review the decisions of lower courts – or in administrative law where a Court like the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) reviews the decisions of the BVA, an administrative tribunal – they use “sta… Read More
May 18th, 2022
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
Read More
Categories: Building a Better Law Firm, Veterans Law Updates
Tags: 38 C.F.R. §20.1304, abuse of discretion, arbitrary or capricious, Butts v. Brown 5 Vet. App. 532 (1993) (en banc), clearly erroneous, de novo, Gilbert v. Derwinski 1 Vet App 49 (1990), Hersey v. Derwinski 2 Vet. App. 91 (1992), inadequate reasons and bases, not in accordance with the law, standards of review, Thun v. Peake 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008)

How the BVA misapplies the Presumption of Soundness.

Read More
May 15th, 2019
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
Read More
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
Tags: 38 USC 1111, Bergman and Moore law firm, BVA Decisions, clearly erroneous, Crowe v. Brown 7 Vet. App. 238 (1994), David A.F. Litvak, Horn v Shinseki 25 Vet. App. 231 (2012), inadequate reasons and bases, Judge Amanda L. Meredith, M. Tenner, McKinney v McDonald 28 Vet. App. 15 (2016), Nathan P. Kirschner, presumption of soundness, shoulder, Wagner v Principi 370 F3d 1089 (Fed Cir 2004)

Recent Cases

Client Win: CAVC No. 21-4029 (BVA fails to consider earlier effective date under §3.156(c).)
This case involves the BVA’s failure to address an argument explicitly raised before it: whether a veteran is entitled to an earlier effective date under 38 C.F.R. 3.156(c) when service medical records are added to the file after the original c… Read More
Client Win: CAVC No. 21-2655, (BVA overlooked evidence of suicidal ideation in claim for an increased PTSD rating)
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 of s… Read More
Client Win: CAVC No. 21-0394, (BVA erred in denying past-due benefits in claim for an increased rating)
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

See More Appellate Results

Connect With Us:

© 2025 Attig Steel, PLLC
View Our Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Law Firm Website Design by The Modern Firm

Copyright © 2025 Attig Steel, PLLC