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

Clear And Unmistakable" Evidence Standard Applied To The Issue Of Aggravation.

Rate this question


carlie

Question

http://www.va.gov/vetapp12/Files2/1214990.txt

Decision Date: 04/25/12

The Board notes that at the time of the Board's February 1985 decision, it had not been established that the "clear and unmistakable" evidence standard applied to the issue of aggravation.

It was only in the Wagner opinion, which was issued in 2004, that the Federal Circuit held that based on the express terms of section 1111 (which was codified as section 311 at the time of the February 1985 decision) the clear and unmistakable standard applied both to the issue of whether a disability pre-existed active service, and to the issue of whether it was aggravated by service. See id. As noted above, CUE cannot be found in a Board decision that correctly applies a statute or regulation when there has subsequently been a change in the interpretation of the statute or regulation. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(e).

However, the Federal Circuit has recently held that its interpretation of section 1111 in the Wagner opinion was retroactive in that the interpretation of a statute explains "what the statute has meant since the date of enactment." Patrick v. Shinseki, 668 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting Patrick v. Nicholson, 242 Fed.Appx. 695, 698, 2007 WL 1725465 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Thus, the Federal Circuit found that a 1986 Board decision which failed to apply the clear-and-unmistakable-evidence standard to the issue of aggravation was not in accordance with the law. See id.

Therefore, the case was remanded so that the Board could determine whether the outcome of the 1986 decision would have been different had it applied the correct standard. See id. Accordingly, as this case presents the same factual scenario as addressed by the Federal Circuit in Patrick, the clear-and-unmistakable-evidence standard should have been applied to the issue of aggravation in the Board's February 1985 decision.

ORDER

The February 1985 Board decision, denying service connection for a psychiatric disorder, is reversed on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error, and the motion is granted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

GREAT find Carlie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was a Motion for Reconsideration under CUE.

BVA awards these types of Motions few and far between but NOTHING is impossible with the VA.

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