Home › Horn v Shinseki 25 Vet. App. 2…

» Horn v Shinseki 25 Vet. App. 231 (2012)

How the BVA misapplies the Presumption of Soundness.

May 15th, 2019

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)

Taking Point! Blog

Apr

Hiring Experienced Appellate Attorney.

April 27th, 2023

Attig | Curran | Steel, PLLC, is a nationally recognized leader in VA claims/appeals. Our main office is in downtown Little Rock, Arkansas, with team members working remotely in multiple states. Relocation is not required. We welcome applicants from… Read More

Mar

Hiring Experienced Paralegal for our VA Claims practice area.

March 3rd, 2023

Oct

8 Reasons to Choose Attig | Curran |Steel to handle your Veterans Court appeals.

October 26th, 2022

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 Appeals f… Read More

Jun

Action items for veterans who want to lead on gun control.

June 3rd, 2022

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 w… Read More

Read the "Taking Point!" Blog

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