» Judge Coral W. Pietsch
Precedential CAVC Alert: Quinn v. Wilkie (17-4555)
38 U.S.C. §7107(b) (2012) requires “[t]he Board shall decide any appeal only after affording the appellant an opportunity for a hearing.” When a veteran has a BVA hearing, and seeks another hearing after the BVA decision is vacated and remanded,…
Read More
August 28th, 2019
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
Tags: 2019 CAVC Decisions, 38 USC 7107(b), BVA hearings, Cook v Wilkie ___ F3d ____ (November 13 2018), Drew Silow, Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), Judge Coral W. Pietsch, Judge Mary J. Schoelen, Judge Michael Allen, Ken Carpenter, M.E. Larkin, Penelope E. Gronbeck, Quinn v Wilkie ___ Vet. App. ___ (2019), St. Petersburg FL VARO, VA Office of General Counsel
Federal Circuit Precedent Alert: Sucic v. Wilkie (definition of "children" in substitution statute)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? Claimants eligible to receive accrued benefits upon the veteran’s death are, in order of eligibility, the veteran’s spouse, “the veteran’s children” and the veteran’s dependent p…
Read More
April 24th, 2019
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
Tags: 38 USC 5121(a), Chevron deference, Chief Judge Sharon Prost, child, Circuit Judge Evan J. Wallach, Circuit Judge Jimmie V. Reyna, D.M. Donahue, Jennifer Hwa, Joshua E. Kurland, Judge Coral W. Pietsch, Judge Mary J. Schoelen, Judge William S. Greenberg, Ken Carpenter, Michele R. Katina, pro veteran canon, St Louis MO VARO
Coffee w/Chris: Is there enough air in your law firm's tires? (11-19-2018)
Today’s video starts off with an overview of a recent precedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the case of Moody v. Wilkie, Cause No. 16-1707. Click here to read the CAVC’s panel decision in Moody v. Wilki…
Read More
November 26th, 2018
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
FCOA Precedent Alert: Cook v. Wilkie (Can a veteran have more than one BVA hearing?)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? 38 U.S.C. §7107(b) (2012) requires “[t]he Board shall decide any appeal only after affording the appellant an opportunity for a hearing.” On remand from the Veterans Court, the veteran asked for a new BVA hear…
Read More
November 15th, 2018
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
Tags: 38 USC 7107(b), Barbara Thomas, Chevron deference, Circuit Judge Alan D. Lourie, Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, Circuit Judge Raymond C. Clevenger, Covington and Burling LLP, Francis M. Jackson, John Niles, Judge Coral W. Pietsch, Judge Margaret Bartley, K.L. Wallin, Ken Carpenter, Manchester NH VARO, Milo H. Hawley, Nathan P. Kirschner, Penelope E. Gronbeck, pro veteran, Procopio, Senior Judge Lawrence B. Hagel, Skidmore deference
FCOA Precedent Alert: Saunders v. Wilkie, #2017-1466 (A Veteran can service connect stand-alone pain)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? This case involves the question of whether a veteran can service connect stand alone pain as a disability for the purposes of VA disability compensation. The basic VA disability compensation statute is clear: the V…
Read More
April 17th, 2018
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
Tags: 2018 Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, 38 CFR 4.1, 38 USC 1110, American Legion, Chief Judge Robert N. Davis, Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley, Circuit Judge Pauline Newman, Circuit Judge Timothy B. Dyk, Judge Coral W. Pietsch, Judge Mary J. Schoelen, knee, Mark E. Porada, Melanie L. Bostwick, NVLSP, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Patrick Berkshire, Roanoke VA VARO, Shereen Marcus, stand alone pain, Thomas J. Dannaher
Case Review: 17-0304, Burgess v. Shulkin (Federal appellate court commands professional work product)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? Very generally stated, the VA has a duty to notify the veteran of the elements of his claim for service connection and the evidence that might prove those elements. 38 USC 5103(a). The VA repeatedly denied service…
Read More
March 9th, 2018
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
PRECEDENTIAL CAVC CASE ALERT: Golden v. Shulkin (16-1208)(GAF Scores in PTSD Opinion)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? Preliminary note about GAF Scores: Effective August 4, 2014, VA amended the portion of its Schedule for Rating Disabilities dealing with mental disorders to remove outdated references to the DSM-IV and replace them…
Read More
March 1st, 2018
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
Episode 002: PRECEDENTIAL CAVC CASE ALERT: Turner v. Shulkin (16-1171)(Receipt of New and Material Evidence)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? New and material evidence received between the issuance of a VA Ratings Decision and a Notice of Disagreement is considered as filed in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal per…
Read More
February 15th, 2018
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
PRECEDENTIAL CAVC CASE ALERT: Foreman v. Shulkin (14-3463)(VA PTSD Effective Date)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? The general effective date rule says that the later of the date entitlement arose and the date of the claim for benefits is the effective date for a VA PTSD claim. 38 C.F.R. §3.400. When a liberalizing rule change…
Read More
February 1st, 2018
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
PRECEDENTIAL CAVC CASE ALERT: Marcelino v. Shulkin (16-2959)(Service Connection of Obesity)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review BVA decisions; however, the Court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities adopted under 38 USC 1155 – or an…
Read More
January 31st, 2018
Contributor: Chris ("Chrys") Attig
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
