Jump to content
VA Disability Community via Hadit.com

VA Disability Claims Articles

Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users

  • hohomepage-banner-2024-2.png

  • 27-year-anniversary-leaderboard.png

    advice-disclaimer.jpg

  • donate-be-a-hero.png

  • 0

Cavc Remand

Rate this question


alexx

Question

Just wondering if any one knows whats happens after CAVC remands my case?

What are the odds the VA will pay up?

Will it take another 5 years before i hear something back?

If someone could review my case and give me an idea what to expect next.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Recommended Posts

my remand, any opinions

JOINT MOTION FOR VACATUR AND REMAND

Under U.S. Vet. App. Rule 27, Appellant, Deric Kulbiski, and Appellee, Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, through their undersigned representatives, respectfully move the Court to vacate and remand the February 3, 2009, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals ("Board"), which denied entitlement to (1) a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for Appellant’s service-connected residuals, posterior process talus fracture, left heel, with left ankle flexor hallucis longus ("FHL") tendonitis, degenerative joint disease and mild instability, and (2) an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected left knee patella chondromalacia. See Record Before the Agency ("R.") at 3-16.

The parties agree that vacatur and remand is warranted for both claims because of problems with the Board’s stated reasons or bases for its determinations. For the purposes of this remand only, the parties accept the statement of facts in the Board decision, except as otherwise noted below.

- 2 -

BASES FOR REMAND

  1. A. Left Knee Evaluation
The parties agree that the Board failed to adequately explain in light of all favorable evidence of record whether a separate rating was warranted for instability of the left knee. See Daves v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 46, 51 (2007) (noting that Board "cannot reject evidence favorable to the claimant without discussing that evidence"). In April of 2008, Appellant complained that his left leg "gave out". R. at 78. In May 2008, Appellant complained to his primary care physician that his left leg intermittently "gives out" and felt "odd" all the time. R. at 75. He stated that intermittently his leg felt like it was going to sleep. Id. A June 2008 physical examination revealed a medial meniscus tear with moderate laxity of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in the left knee. R. at 30. The examiner ordered a left knee brace and estimated that three to four sessions would be necessary to "make sure his knees are stabilized." Id. At a September 2008 Board hearing, Appellant testified that his left leg would give out on him "at least twice a week." R. at 38.

In the decision on appeal, the Board found that there was no evidence of "instability of the knee," R. at 13, but did not discuss the evidence described above regarding Appellant’s lay statements regarding his complaints of apparently worsening of his condition following the March 2008 VA examination. The Board erred where it did not provide adequate reasons or bases for its denial

- 3 -

of an increased rating for the left knee disability where it did not discuss this favorable evidence. See Daves v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. at 51; see, e.g., Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995) (noting that new examination may be required "where the record does not adequately reveal the current state of the claimant’s disability").

  1. B. Left Ankle and Foot Evaluation
The parties agree that the Board failed to adequately explain how it applied the rating schedule to reach a single award with a 20-percent evaluation for Appellant’s disabilities of the left leg, ankle, and foot. The Board is required to provide reasons or bases for its findings, on all material issues of fact and law presented by the record, adequate to enable the claimant to understand the basis of the Board’s decision and to allow for meaningful judicial review. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56-57 (1990).

The parties agree that the Board did not adequately explain how Diagnostic Code 5284, for "Foot injuries, other," see 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, could be used to account for Appellant’s left leg and ankle dysfunction, and erred in failing to consider whether a separate rating could be assigned for his disability affecting the musculature of the left lower extremity. At a February 2006 VA examination, the examiner noted "tenderness throughout the posterior tibial musculature" which he appeared to relate to Appellant’s service-connected condition. R. at 215. The examiner opined, "the veteran has experienced calf muscle tendonitis ever since the 1991 surgery." R. at 217. However the Board

- 4 -

did not discuss whether Appellant’s symptoms warrant a separate rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.73, DC 5311 ("The Foot and Leg," Muscle Group XI). Thus, vacatur and remand is warranted. On remand, Appellant is entitled to submit additional evidence and argument, Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369, 372 (1999) (per curiam order), and VA is obligated to conduct a critical examination of the justification for its previous decision. Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 394, 397 (1991). The Board is further directed to obtain copies of the Court’s order, Appellant’s brief, and this motion to incorporate them into Appellant’s claims file for appropriate consideration in subsequent decisions on this claim. The parties request that the Court explicitly incorporate the terms of this motion into any resulting order, such that Appellant will have an enforceable right to compliance with those terms. See Breeden v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 475, 479 (2004). WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully move the Court to set aside the Board decision of February 3, 2009, and to remand this claim for readjudication. Respectfully submitted, FOR APPELLANT: /s/ Glenn R. Bergmann GLENN R. BERGMANN March 16, 2010 /s/ Thomas Polseno Date THOMAS POLSENO

Bergmann & Moore LLC

7920 Norfolk Ave., Suite 700

Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 290-3106

- 5 -

FOR APPELLEE: WILL A. GUNN General Counsel R. RANDALL CAMPBELL Assistant General Counsel /s/ David L. Quinn DAVID L. QUINN Deputy Assistant General Counsel March 16, 2010 /s/ Monique A. S. Allen Date MONIQUE A. S. ALLEN Appellate Attorney Office of the General Counsel (027G) U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20420 (202) 639-4787 / 4800

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

I had 4 issues awarded joint remand at the CAVC in December 2009. My VARO recieved my case file 3 months ago. The VARO and American Legion can only tell me it's there. They think no one has opened it yet to see what they were ordered to do. I'm so sick of this crap. These 4 issues are from a 2000 appeal............I hope you have better luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really sucks!! 2000, who else in government would wait 10+ years for justice?

See you are 100% rated, are you looking for SM's?

I had 4 issues awarded joint remand at the CAVC in December 2009. My VARO recieved my case file 3 months ago. The VARO and American Legion can only tell me it's there. They think no one has opened it yet to see what they were ordered to do. I'm so sick of this crap. These 4 issues are from a 2000 appeal............I hope you have better luck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

I was 50% from 2000-2002, 70% from 2002-2007 and 80% in 2008. I recieved TDIU in 2009. The four issues from 2000 if rated higher from 2000-2009 will yield back pay. The clock has stopped in 2009 because they finally gave me 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks --

I just won another BVA remand from the CAVC, representing myself. This is an effective date appeal, submitted in 2002. This is my second time at the CAVC, so I have a good idea what to expect. I'm happy to share what I know; if anyone's interested, feel free to email me.

I wanted to share a couple of lines from the Court's decision, that I thought might be of interest:

"Not only is the Board's analysis incomplete, it appears to be factually incorrect and internally inconsistent with earlier descriptions of the available evidence"

"Notwithstanding the clarity of the pro se appellant's arguments, the Board, in the decision on appeal, has again failed to adequately adjudicate the scope of the appellant's 1971 claim"

I expect that these reflect a common problem with the BVA that others may find familiar -- the inadequacy of the "reasons and bases" section.

Good luck to all with your appeals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use