» Michael E. Kilcoyne

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
Read More
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
Tags: attorney ethics, Disabled American Veteran (DAV), due process violation, Hartford CT VARO, James R. Drysdale, Judge Coral W. Pietsch, Maxwell D. Kinman, Michael E. Kilcoyne

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
Read More
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
Tags: 38 CFR 3.114, 38 CFR 3.304(f), 38 CFR 3.400, Chief Judge Robert N. Davis, dissent, effective date, Judge Coral W. Pietsch, Judge Margaret Bartley, liberalizing rule, Michael E. Kilcoyne, Nathan P. Kirschner, pro-se, ptsd, Waco TX VARO