Menu
» Judge Mary J. Schoelen
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 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 Attig
Monday Morning Coffee with Chris: Do THIS when you get back from a Legal Conference.
What to do when you get back from a Legal Conference? I just returned home from a multi-day legal conference: this time the Fall Conference for the National Organization for Veterans Advocates (NOVA) in Washington, D.C. Here’s what I’ll t…
Read More
October 22nd, 2018
Contributor: Chris Attig
Tags: 2018 CAVC Oral Arguments, Anxious Lawyer, Barton F. Stichman, Caitlin S. Milo, Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), Headspace, Hire Slow Fire Fast, Judge Amanda L. Meredith, Judge Margaret Bartley, Judge Mary J. Schoelen, Julia A. Turner, NDSS, Next Lawyer Up, NOVA, NVLSP, Speigner v Wilkie #16-2811
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 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
PRECEDENTIAL CAVC CASE ALERT: Harvey v. Shulkin (16-1515)(Lawyer as Medical Expert)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has laid out clear standards for determining the adequacy of a VA expert opinion in a VA disability compensation claim. Accord, e.g., Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 97 (2…
Read More
February 9th, 2018
Contributor: Chris 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 Attig
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
16-2259: Chavez v. Shulkin
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? A veteran has a burden to present and support a claim for benefits with facts, and not pure speculation or remote possibility. Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) . A VA C&P Exam report must rest…
Read More
January 15th, 2018
PRECEDENTIAL CAVC CASE ALERT: King v. Shulkin (16-2959)(Extra Schedular Rating)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? Extra-schedular consideration should be considered “where the schedular evaluations are found to be inadequate.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (emphasis added). The herring loss rating criteria are largely b…
Read More
December 22nd, 2017
Contributor: Chris Attig
Case Review: 16-2407, Samantha Unell (Proving Nehmer Effective Date)
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? The effective date of a veteran’s claim for a “covered herbicide disease” depends on whether (1) VA denied the claim for the covered herbicide disease between September 25, 1985, and May 3, 1989,…
Read More
December 22nd, 2017
Contributor: Chris Attig
Categories: Veterans Law Updates