» inadequate reasons and bases
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
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.
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)
Case Review: 16-4086, Emerson v. Shulkin (PTSD Rating)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? When establishing a PTSD rating, the Board of Veterans Appeals is required to “engage in a holistic analysis” of a veteran’s mental health symptoms to determine the proper disability percnetage. B… Read More
January 8th, 2018
Case Review: 16-1624, Crawley v. Shulkin (Inadequate BVA Reasoning)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? Because a medical exam opinion addresses issues of material fact, the BVA must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination that is “adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise ba… Read More
December 14th, 2017