Caring. Effective. Efficient.

» 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 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… Read More
February 1st, 2018
Contributor: Chris 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

Recent Cases

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… 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
Client Win: CAVC No. 21-0140 (BVA fails to comply with a Veterans Court Order).
This case involves the BVA’s failure to comply with a Veterans Court Order in a January 2020 Memorandum Decision. The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (BVA fails to comply with Veterans Court Ord… Read More

See More Appellate Results

Taking Point! Blog

May
23
Working with Purpose.
May 23rd, 2022
After years of exploring different fields, I’ve found purpose-driven work here, at Attig | Curran | Steel.   There are a lot of variables in the experience of “happy.” It is difficult to keep it continuous.  Do I feel happy when my kids… Read More
May
18
Four standards of review at the Veterans Court.
May 18th, 2022
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 “… Read More
May
16
A Tale of Two Veterans.
May 16th, 2022
Let me tell you the story of two veterans. The first veteran – we’ll call him Jim – claimed he was exposed to herbicides – Agent Orange – outside of the Republic of Vietnam. After the VA spent decades denying his claim,… Read More
Mar
2
Veterans Court: What constitutes loss of use of a reproductive organ for purposes of SMC?
March 2nd, 2021
In January 2021, the loss of use of a reproductive organ for SMC purposes was the focus of a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Bria v. Wilkie.   The panel consisted of Judge Mere… Read More

Read the "Taking Point!" Blog