Search the Community

What are the chances that the CAVC will grant my Motion for reconsideration of the Clerk's Order closing my Appeal in a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR)? Copy and paste from my motion after requesting my attorney be removed. Vet App. No. 23-1587 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS LEMUEL Petitioner, in Pro Se v. Denis R. McDonough Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent. November 2, 2023 MOTION TO RECONSIDER 10/26/2023 MANDATE I, Lemuel C Bray, petition the court to reconsider the 10/26/2023 Mandate. I have petitioned the court to remove Mr. Steele as my representative because he is unwilling to assist in getting the court’s order, which he says is “boiler plate” and will have no affect on my legacy appeal at the BVA changed so that I have no worry of being limited to the issues decided in the BVA’s erroneous AMA Decision. I read the order as locking me into the AMA Decision and only able to address the specific issues stated in the remand and causing me to drop all issues raised and evidence presented that was not considered by the BVA in its AMA Decision. I petition the court to vacate fully the AMA Decision and hold that I had not relinquished my Legacy Appeal including my brief and motions presented per the BASES FOR REMAND in the JMPR of 10/20/2023 and that there be no “partial” in the remand order limiting what I can bring before the BVA. That the BVA must address the “facts” as stated in my brief and motions as well as the specific references I have made supporting what I claim as facts. If the BVA finds evidence of record countering my references that overweigh my stated facts, the BVA must so state and provide the evidence of record countering my references. On October 20, 2023, I sent the following email to Mr. Steele: “Re: Rule 33 Memo From Lem Bray <Email Address Redacted> To Brandon Steele<Email Address Redacted> Date Friday, October 20th, 2023 at 7:52 AM We are good with it as long as no issues are closed. Total remand because the BVA decision did not consider the brief and respond to the motions including the motion to allow an alternative to a hearing as opposed to slamming into the AMA. LEMUEL C BRAY 2833 Main Street Torrington, WY 82240 307 316 8568” I have a SC TBI with “off days” in which I do not function mentally well. The proposed motion was slipped by me and did not get the BVA AMA Decision fully vacated with remand having the effect of closing my Legacy Appeal briefs and motions without consideration of the issues therein as I read the order. As I read the remand the “AMA Decision” that ignored my briefs and motions will stand and be unappealable. Only those issues addressed in the BVA AMA are addressable and the remand will not cover issues raised in my briefs and motions that were not addressed in my BVA Legacy Appeal. I am, therefore, submitting a request for reconsideration for the 11/29/2023 BVA AMA decision to be fully vacated and remanded in Legacy Appeal based upon the “BASES FOR REMAND” in JMPR that had the effect of converting my appeal of the erroneous converting my Legacy Appeal to an AMA decision, with the failure to provide the Legacy Appeal hearing and Decision. Mr. Steele still argues that the “order is boiler plate” and nothing needs to be done. A clear reading of the order indicates otherwise. My argument is that Mr. Steele apparently did not read my brief and motions and include anything in the issues to be remanded in Legacy Appeal that were not in the AMA Decision. He failed to research and understand the my reasoning. I recognize that can be difficult given my TBI residuals but he needs to learn to deal with the likes of me and address my issues as I state them or convince me in “law” that they are not addressable. My previous attempts to appeal decisions did not fully understand the BVA is the finder of fact and erroneous statements of fact by the BVA cannot be addressed in appeal without a showing of “arbitrary capriciousness” such as the way the BVA slammed me into AMA and ignored my brief and motions. /S/LEMUEL C. BRAY

Some have said they got a copy of there exam by going to the regional office. Is this true

I've been trying to get an earlier effective date for my father's claim that was granted in 2015. EED denied at BVA, appealed to CAVC and was remanded in Dec. Any thoughts on how long this will take at the BVA this 2nd time around? Anyone have any success with EED on a remanded CAVC decision on 3.156c? He originally filed in 1983, granted max (50%) in 2015. and that is the EED I'm appealing. Huge retro so I know it will be a huge fight, but def worth it on principle alone.

I've been mediclally retired since June 27,2012 with the same disabilities I have today been 100℅ unemployable P&T AND THEN 100℅ Schedular from :(June 27,2012) and "housebound in fact," which is the SMC (S-2), from (June 27,2012). So the (10) year rule is in effect, if that even means anything, the VA will do what the hell it wants and break every rule on the way as they laugh about it,let's face it. So I couldn't get anything successful on my claims at my local VARO they just deny,deny,deny without even considering the evidence in front of them. So I appealed to the BVA which after a year granted everything (8) different contentions ALL "GRANTED," NO "REMANDS, I was very excited about this, but the only concern was the effective dates were way off, by years! So, I filed with the court of veterans appeals or CAVC, about correcting the effective dates and the judge at CAVC agreed with me and ordered that it be "remanded," back to the BVA to correct the "Effective Dates," that are more consistent with his decision. So here we are, the LOCAL VARO, denies everything I've asked to be awarded, several times over, I then send in the same disabilities, with same amount of evidence, that my local VARO had this whole time, and the "Judge" at the "BVA grants" everything, and the BVA judge also finds a "CUE," on the local VARO for not awarding me or even considering the SMC (S-2) with effective date : (June 27,2012). Then the judge at CAVC agrees that the effective dates need to be corrected and order it remanded back to the BVA to correct this to be more consistent with this decision. So the next part is where In have some issues with BVA GRANTS ME EVERYTHING THAT LOCAL VARO DENIED, THE CAVC JUDGE AGREES THE DECISION IS CORRECT BY THE BVA FOR AWARDING ME BUT MUST BE REMANDED BACK TO BVA TO CORRECT THE EFFECTIVE DATES, THEN ONCE THE BVA GETS THE REMAND, THE BVA JUDGE, NOT THR SAME JUDGE WHO MADE THE ORIGINAL GRANT OF ALL MY CONTENTIONS, BUT A DIFFERENT BVA JUDGE, THIS WAS (2) WEEKS AGO BY THE WAY WHEN IT WAS COMPLETED, DOESN'T EVEN MENTION MUCH ABOUT CORRECTING THE EFFECTIVE DATES, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE REASON FOR WHY THE CAVC JUDGE REMANDED, IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT THE BVA JUDGE WANTS ME TO GO THRU ALL THE EXAMS AGAIN FOR AID AND ATTENDANCE, AS HE DOESNT LIKE THE NOTES OR RESULTS FROM MY MEDICAL RECORDS?? SO THE BVA JUDGE THEN "REMANDS A REMAND," ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE VARO, TO CORRECT THIS, BUT KEEP IN MIND, THIS ALREADY AFTER A BVA JUDGE GRANTED EVERYTHING WITH THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF HIM, THEN A CAVC JUDGE, AGREES WITH THE BVA AWARD, BUT REMAND BACK TO THE BVA TO CORRECT THE EFFECTIVE DATES, THEN THE BVA JUDGE ON REMAND DOESNT MENTION MUCH ABOUT CORRECTING THE EFFECTIVE DATES, WHICH WAS THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE REMAND BY CAVC IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT THEN BVA JUDGE REMANDS, IT BACK LOCAL VARO, TO HAVE ME RETAKE ALL THE EXAMS "AGAIN" ON A DECISION THAT A JUDGE AT THE BVA ORIGINALLY GRANTED AND A CAVC JUDGE AGREED THAT THE DECISION WAS CORRECT BUT TO CORRECT THE EFFECTIVE DATES. So as of right now the local VARO has the remand/appeal from the BVA. So is this legal? Whats your thoughts on this? "(10) -year rule in Effect" Thanks!

Well really just venting and pointing out something that are keeping me up at night smh. Ok this is the court addressing my increase from 70% to 100. The Court need not reach the issue of whether determining occupational impairment for the purpose of evaluating a service-connected psychiatric disorder and employability for the purpose of awarding TDIU are separate questions, because the Board in its November 22, 2021, decision, failed to consider all relevant evidence. the Board found that there was “no indication” that the psychiatric disorder “would totally impair his employment,” but it did so without discussing its potentially favorable January 2020 factual finding that the psychiatric disorder is evaluated as “totally disabling” and “renders him unemployable. And remand my case. Ok did the court just tell the bva how can't I not be 100 percent when you already said the condition is total. My thing is why doesn't the court just grant stuff. Now I am going back to the bva to let they try and not address anything and I bet a million dollars they try the exam games and remand. I will be posting more info from the court.

So just trying to figure this out... I have an appeal to vba for eed and have a lawyer helping..we have a 20% contract... if it gets denied and I appeal to cavc, does that null our contract since they would then be paid under EAJA legislation? Seems like yes but I can find nothing in writing saying so...

My husband has now been denied at the BVA level (only took us 7 years). He has every neurological issue there is and he was at Camp Lejeune in the late 70’s. They keep stating that this didn’t start while he was in the USMC or within 7 years afterwards. We have 2 very good nexus letters, we had a review from a physician that we never met (that was favorable for my husband), we even had genetic testing and he had no markers genetically at birth. yet he was still denied. The VA states that this didn’t manifest in the military or within 7 years afterwards. It was more like 15 years afterwards but we didn’t know about CL until 2009. They also mention that since his ancestry’s was Northern European, that’s most likely why he has these issues. SMH….(you can’t make this garbage up). Probably 75% of the US is Northern European but not 75% of us have these neurological issues. Anyhow, how do you get around the timeframe issue. He probably had symptoms years before he got them actually checked out but we have no proof of that. This is so frustrating…he is very ill. Every day is a struggle and he probably won’t be able to walk here eventually. I appreciate any help.

So I got a decision from the BVA that seems favorable, totally slam dunking the VARO in Atlanta and the various mercenary opinions they acquired. A few of the items on appeal were remanded for the usual reasons. I don't feel it's necessary to go into all the details. However, then I got a letter from the DAV, which has done absolutely nothing that I'm aware of to help my claims/appeals up to this point. After some boiler plate about CAVC and deadlines, it goes on to say this: So, is this legit? Why after so many lawyers refusing to help me all these years because there is nothing in it for them would these guys be interested in helping me now? I made it this far without any of their help. Why should I even consider such a program where if anything is gained they get a chunk of it? I'm sorry, but I don't generally trust special offers through the mail claiming only to help a select few. Also, I've been burned, let's see, by six separate attorneys on completely unrelated matters. I don't trust any of them, AT ALL. As far as I can tell, most of the problems in this country currently come about because of them--the ones who run for office, the ones who chase ambulances, and the ones who burn their clients for another snort of coke, because they are friends with the opposing attorney, or because they've been paid or threatened in private. I've been through a lot--you wouldn't believe me if I told it all. Already I doubt this will be taken as more than paranoid ravings by an unstable person. More importantly, anyone out there with genuine experience with these guys at CCK? Anyone who has a history of comments online proving they aren't just a hired goon posting social media commentary for pay that is.

Well space a is back open. I never did it but been think about trying it to go to Hawaii. Any one every use it.

Well i have been at peace. The lawyer call me a talk to me about every move on my case. We talk about law and he address by issues to the court. Can't ask for more. I don't like that the VA lawyers which are about 5 on 3 cases refuse to address them or do a joint remand. So I feel this is going always to the judge again. They refuse to address merging the case together. To me hoping we mess up. Smh. Well I am at the waiting stage again. Telephone conference April 22. VA brief due April 26 An one case is just getting to were they have to give the lawyer the record. So next month I should get some type answer.

I really need to vent. Well I seen it coming when this new lawyer was put on my case. Ok the record was serve to the lawyer yesterday. I get a call I don't see any issue with the rating for the adjustment disorder. You have tdiu and smc there is no need to fight for the 100 based on the adjustment. Lol. Next he withdraw fromy case and I don't have my phone record. My brief is do in 18 days I got to put a motion in for a 10 day extension do to this. Told the pro Bono program need to send me the record an they have to be removed. Call they tell me they are working on it. But my 18 days is running. This is why I did want to us this place. They make you sign them on your case before they talk to the veteran on even see the record. I am so mad it will get fix be I don't feel like go threw more issues. I should of stuck to my guns. Oh a the petition for extraordinary relief was rule as moot. Because they made this decisions I am appeal to court. New lawyer tell me u lose your case with the petition. Smh I didn't even have the time or patience to deal with him. I don't even have a problem doing The brief in 10 days. I no my case I no my record and understand where everything is in my record. I just used it last year to get the court to. Reverse the adjustment disorder. An To set a side the effective dates for smc s and l that were granted by the board. Also to get the remand for smc o and r and loss of use under smc benfits. It's not a real problem I am just tried of all these road blocks. Be I made this ok e by using the program when I no better.

So much for the VA trying to "assist" and to be "non-adversarial." "David Shulkin, the former VA secretary, candidly acknowledged that the system as it currently functions is “adversarial.” Krause, Veterans Affairs Secretary Admits VA Is ‘Adversarial’ For Veterans (Nov. 8, 2017)." "In 2020 (the most recent year for which statistics are available), the CAVC ruled for the veteran in more than 90% of cases decided on the merits. See U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Annual Report at 3 (2020).12 This means that BVA denials of benefits are erroneous in nine out of every ten cases. Even worse, claimants were awarded Equal Access to Justice fees in nearly 80% of appeals. See U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Annual Report at 4.13 EAJA fees are available only if a court finds that the government’s position is not “substantially justified.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-234/217825/20220307111705611_21-234 Amicus Brief of Military-Veterans Advocacy and Legal Aid Foundation of LA.pdf

Ok some say it not percendent other say it is. Smc s for been Housebound by fact the problem seem to be that there are no bva decision which address housebound by fact. Ok plz don't change the post we aren't talk about statutory housebound. Which is the 100/60 thing. Ok in Howell the court state what Congress attend was for smc s housebound by fact. Not been able to leave one home to make a income. The VA manual only address you can't denied because a veteran can travel to medical appointments. That all it address from Howell v Nicholson percendent It is my belief that veterans who are unable to leave there home to make a income. Are housebound by fact. But I can seem to find one bva decision that address housebound by fact. They are all based on the 100/60 thing it crazy to me. Ok if the VA are to infer smc benfits when a veteran become eligible. I believe it would be a cue. But I choose to apply first. An save the cue. If I lose the effective date issue. I will cue. Since I been on this mission I have got smc l and half. Effective when I apply. They have been fighting hard not to address any time period before I apply. I am now at the cavc the 2nd time and the VA lawyer on the case will not address that smc is to be inferred. Keep saying the effective date is the date of the formal claim and there is no informal claim in the record. An the VA stop informal claim in 2015 so the VA has no reason to address any informal claims. See how they are make the owe rule or just think the court is Crazy. Howell v Nicholson Barkley v Peake Many more address smc benfits and there effective dates. Well my ? Is does or have anyone seen a decision based on housebound by fact.

Well I guess it is some what good but I still got to see the judge to get them to address everything. Ok they are say smc l basically back to 2014. They want to remand to address this. But for the smc s housebound by fact.they are still playing games. Now smc is a informal claim smh. The VA was to maximize my claims back in 2001 and 2012. They will not address the housebound by fact. Howell v Nicholson issue. Well I will talk with lawyer we will win that to all he has to show is the tdiu decision 2001 and the extra scheduler tdiu decision 2012. Which granted tdiu from 1993-2001. The VA has been aware that I have been confine to my home since 1993. And was permanent and total. Smc s back to 1993. It's coming.lol I hope. BRIEF OF APPELLEE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS __________________________________ I. ISSUES PRESENTED Whether the Court should affirm that portion of the November 23, 2021, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denying entitlement to an effective date prior to May 9, 2018, for the award of special monthly compensation (SMC) based on housebound criteria, and remand that portion of the Board decision denying entitlement to an effective date prior to June 11, 2018, for the award of SMC based on aid and attendance. II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Jurisdictional Statement The Court has proper jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a), which grants the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims exclusive jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Board. B. Nature of the Case Appellant seeks an earlier effective date for SMC at the aid and attendance and housebound rates. (Appellant’s Brief (App. Br.) at 9-15)). Appellant argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases as to its determinations regarding aid and attendance (App. Br. at 9-13) and SMC at the housebound rate (App. Br. at 9-10). Yet, the Board adequately considered the evidence of record as to SMC at the housebound rate, and the Court should affirm this portion of the Board’s determination. However, the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its determination as to the proper effective date for SMC based on aid and attendance criteria, so the Court should vacate and remand this portion of the Board’s decision. C. Statement of Facts and Procedural History Appellant served in the Army from October 1993 to December 1993. (R. at 5139). In April 2012, the Board issued a decision awarding a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) as of December 1993. (R. at 273445). In a May 2014 independent living assessment, an examiner described Appellant’s ability to perform the activities of daily life. (R. at 2496-2502). During a September 2014 VA Social Work Note, the social worker described Appellant’s need for assistance and noted that “a claim for A&A can be explored.” (R. at 2439 (2439-40)). In an April 2015 independent living plan, the provider described goals to improve Appellant’s ability to perform the activities of daily living. (R. at 232931). The provider in a September 2015 VA vocational rehabilitation note described a vocation as not reasonably feasible to due, inter alia, the impairment to Appellant’s ability to perform the activities of daily living. (R. at 2309 (2309-13)). Appellant filed a claim for SMC in May 2018. (R. at 2164-67). In a June 2018 VA examination report, the examiner described Appellant’s functional limitations, including an inability to “dress[] and [undress]” or do “dishes, housework, shoes, cooking, [or] putting away groceries.” (R. at 1598 (15661600)). A July 2018 private paraprofessional care plan described Appellant’s need for aid and attendance with the activities of daily living. (R. at 1400). The RO denied SMC at the aid and attendance and housebound rates in a July 2018 decision. (R. at 1401-13). In August 2018, Appellant filed a notice of disagreement with additional evidence and argument. (R. at 1384-85 (1383-91)). The RO continued the denial of SMC in an April 2019 Statement of the Case. (R. at 126198). Appellant filed a VA Form 9 later that month. (R. at 1251 (1245-56)). In a January 2020 decision, the Board granted SMC at the housebound rate from May 9, 2018, but no earlier, and SMC at the aid and attendance rate from July 17, 2018, but no earlier. (R. at 1039-49). Appellant appealed this decision and, in January 2021, the Court issued a memorandum decision vacating the Board’s denial of earlier effective dates for SMC, finding that the Board erred in assigning effective dates for SMC in the first instance. (R. at 928 (924-31)). Following this decision, Appellant’s claims were returned to the Board and the Board remanded Appellant’s claim in May 2021, instructing the RO to “assign effective dates for SMC housebound and SMC based on the need for aid and attendance in the first instance.” (R. at 869 (865-70)). The RO did so later that month and found that SMC at the housebound rate was warranted as of May 9, 2018, and SMC at the aid and attendance rate was warranted as of July 17, 2018. (R. at 702-10). Appellant filed a Form 10182 in July 2021, requesting direct review by the Board. (R. at 646). In the November 2021 decision on appeal, the Board denied an effective date prior to May 9, 2018, for SMC based on housebound criteria, and granted an effective date of June 11, 2018, but no earlier, for SMC based on aid and attendance. (R. at 3 (1-10)). The Board found that Appellant was not eligible for SMC at the housebound rate until the May 2018 claim, per the relevant statute. (R. at 3, 8-9). The Board found that there was no evidence of record of Appellant’s need for aid and attendance prior to June 2018. (R. at 9-10). III. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT The Board reasonably concluded, based on the evidence of record, that an earlier effective date was not warranted for SMC at the housebound rate. However, the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for denying an earlier effective date for SMC at the aid and attendance rate. Therefore, the Court should affirm that portion of the Board’s decision as to SMC at the housebound rate, and vacate and remand that portion of the Board’s decision as to SMC at the aid and attendance rate. IV. ARGUMENT Appellant seeks an earlier effective date for SMC at the aid and attendance and housebound rates. (App. Br. at 9-15). Special monthly compensation at the aid and attendance rate listed in 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l) is payable when a Veteran is helpless or so nearly helpless that he or she requires the regular aid and attendance of another person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.351(b); see 38 U.S.C. § 1502(b). A claimant will be considered in need of regular aid and attendance if he or she: (1) Is blind or so nearly blind as to have corrected visual acuity of 5/200 or less, in both eyes, or concentric contraction of the visual field to 5 degrees or less; or (2) Is a patient in a nursing home because of mental or physical incapacity; or (3) Establishes a factual need for aid an attendance under the criteria set forth in § 3.352(a). 38 C.F.R. § 3.351(c). In determining the need for regular aid and attendance, VA considers: inability to dress or undress or keep ordinarily clean and presentable, frequent need to adjust any prosthetic, inability to feed one’s self, inability to attend to the wants of nature, or physical or mental incapacity which requires care or assistance on a regular basis to protect the claimant from hazards or dangers incident to his or her daily environment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.352(a). Special monthly compensation at the housebound rate listed in 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) is payable when a Veteran is “permanently housebound” such that “the veteran is substantially confined to such veteran’s house … or immediate premises due to a service-connected disability or disabilities which it is reasonably certain will remain throughout such veteran’s lifetime.” A determination as to whether a veteran is entitled to SMC is a finding of fact subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard. See Turco v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 222, 224 (1996). A. The Board Provided Inadequate Reasons or Bases As to Aid and Attendance and Remand Is Warranted Appellant argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases as to the effective date for SMC at the aid and attendance rate. (App. Br. at 9-13). Appellant argues that there are records from prior to the prior to the current June 2018 effective date that suggest that Appellant required aid and attendance. (App. Br. at 12-13); see (R. at 2309 (September 2015 Special Administrative Review), 2329-31 (April 2015 Rehabilitation Plan), 2439 (September 2014 Social Work Note), 2496-2502 (May 2014 Preliminary Independent Living Assessment)). Yet the Board failed to address this evidence in considering whether SMC at the aid and attendance rate was warranted as of the May 2018 date of claim, rather than the June 2018 date that is his current effective date. (App. Br. at 13). As Appellant argues, the Board did not address the adequacy of the June 2018 VA examination report, and the fact that this report did not state when Appellant’s limitations began. (App. Br. at 9-11); (R. at 1598-1600). Therefore, consistent with Appellant’s arguments, the Court should remand this part of the Board’s decision for an adequate statement of reasons or bases. The Secretary concedes that the Board should address this evidence and whether it warrants an earlier effective date for SMC at the aid and attendance rate. However, to the extent that Appellant argues that the Board should have considered whether any of the above-described medical records constituted an informal claim for SMC or an informal claim for an increased rating to include SMC, his argument is without merit. (App. Br. at 11); see Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 118, 121 (1991). Some of Appellant’s evidence that he argues might have been an informal claim was from after March 24, 2015, the last date when VA accepted informal claims for benefits. (R. at 2309, 2329-31); see Bailey v. Wilkie, 33 Vet.App. 188, 198 (2021) (“Prior to March 24, 2015, the effective date of these amendments, VA accepted both formal and informal claims for benefits”). And he fails to explain how the remaining evidence consists of medical records that were submitted as part of a claim for benefits, or otherwise satisfied the criteria as an informal claim. See Criswell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 501, 504 (2006) (“The mere existence of medical records generally cannot be construed as an informal claim; rather, there must be some intent by the claimant to apply for benefits.”). Similarly, he argues that “SMC may be considered part of a claim for increased compensation,” but fails to fails to carry of burden of identifying the claims that SMC would attach to or explaining how any further consideration of Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 118 (1991), would be determinative in this case. See Hilkert v. West, 12 Vet.App. 145, 151 (1999) (en banc) (holding that the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error); see also Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 410, 416 (2006) (holding that the Court will not entertain underdeveloped arguments). Therefore, although remand is warranted in this case, the Court should only remand this case for the reasons conceded by the Secretary. See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103, 129 (2005) (where judicial review is not hindered by deficiency of reasons or bases, a remand for reasons or bases error would be of no benefit to the appellant and would therefore serve no useful purpose). B. The Board Provided Adequate Reasons or Bases As to SMC Housebound and the Court Should Affirm This Part of the Decision Next, Appellant argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases as to SMC at the housebound rate. (App. Br. at 13-15). However, the Board provided adequate reasons or bases, and the Court should affirm this part of the decision. Appellant’s effective date for SMC at the housebound rate is the same as his date of claim: May 2018. (R. at 3). The record reflects that, in May 2018, Appellant filed a claim seeking SMC along with service connection for a mood disorder and depression. (R. at 2165). In this regard, the Board found that “the record indicates his eligibility for statutory housebound status arose due to service connection for adjustment disorder being granted from May 9, 2018” and “as of May 9, 2018, the Veteran had one disability rated as totally disabling.” (R. at 8). Thus, as the Board found, the facts in this case do not support an effective date prior to the May 2018 date of claim. (R. at 9); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(a)(1). So while Appellant argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for denying SMC at the housebound rate because it did not define the relevant term of “substantially confined” (App. Br. at 13-15), such an error (which the Secretary does not concede) would be at worst harmless error, as Appellant cannot receive an effective date earlier than May 9, 2018, for SMC at the housebound rate. See Lamb v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 227, 235 (2008) (holding that there is no prejudicial error when a remand for a decision on the merits would serve no useful purpose). Crucially, Appellant solely focuses this part of his brief on the Board’s lack of definitions and fails to explain how any such definition could result in an earlier effective date. Hilkert, 12 Vet.App. at 151. Thus, Appellant’s argument lacks legal and factual merit and should be rejected by the Court. The Court should therefore affirm that portion of the Board’s decision in which the Board denied an earlier effective date for SMC at the housebound rate. V. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court should affirm the portion of the November 23, 2021, Board decision that denied an earlier effective date for SMC at the housebound rate, and remand the portion of the Board decision that denied an earlier effective date for SMC at the aid and attendance rate. Respectfully submitted, Attorneys for the Secretary

Ok here is the way the lawyer word the issue. I am happy now we just waiting to see who is going to address it. The VA brief is due in 20 days they will try to get a extension I guess the court will give them 10 extra days. So about 30 day we will see how the veterans affairs lawyer answer it. Only thing that bother me is he is not showing that I have not been able to leave my home to make a income since 1993. But hAy I could get it all address. 2. The Board’s statement of reasons or bases denying an earlier effective date than May 9, 2018, for SMC based on housebound status under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) was inadequate. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s) a veteran is entitled to SMC if his or her service connected disabilities render the veteran permanently housebound. The requirement of permanently housebound” will be considered to have been met when the veteran is substantially confined to such veteran’s house (ward or clinical areas, if institutionalized) or immediate premises due to a service-connected disability or disabilities which it is reasonably certain will remain throughout such veteran’s lifetime. 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s). The term “substantially confined” is not defined by statute or regulation. Howell v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 535, 540 (2006). The Secretary has taken the position that “substantially confined” is met when the claimant is restricted to his house except for medical treatment purposes. Id (noting Senate Report No. 1745 (June 27, 1960) that Congress intended to provide additional compensation for veterans who were unable to overcome their particular disabilities and leave the house in order to earn an income as opposed to an inability to leave the house at all). The Court has held that leaving the house for medical purposes cannot, by itself, serve as the basis for finding that a veteran is not substantially confined for SMC purposes. Id. Here, the Board did not define the term “substantially confined” nor did it address the Court’s holding in Howell, 19 Vet. App. at 540 or Congress’s intent behind the statute. Johnson v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 245, 254-55 (2018)(stating that without a standard for comparing and assessing terms, such conclusory findings by the Board are unreviewable by the Court and prevent the veteran from what his evidence must demonstrate for a benefit to be granted). This is to say that the Board did not explain why the functional limitations identified by, inter alia, the 2018 VA examiners and paraprofessional care plan, showed that possessed the ability to overcome his particular disabilities and leave the house in order to earn an income. Howell, 19 Vet. App. at 540. As noted above, the evidence of record shows that mr cannot travel beyond his current domicile, is unable to dress and undress himself, do dishes, housework, prepare meals, or put away groceries, and has some difficulty in the ability to feed himself, bathe, groom, use the toilet, drive, change from a sitting to standing position, and walk long distances. R. 1430-31 (1430-31), 2310 (2309- 13). The Board’s failure to define “substantially confined” and apply these limitations to

Ok this is the games you play when you fight the VA. Ok I apply for mental health 2001. So I get the rba and there was never a appeal decision made that is in the record. I understand that it remain pending in appeal status. An there is no final decision made way before I got the record. I just want the VA to admit it. That why I dispute the record. Well here is there response to the court. The undersigned reviewed Appellant’s RBA and electronic claims file in the Veterans’ Benefits Management System (VBMS) and could not locate a Rating Decision dated March 22, 2004, that mentioned a denial of Appellant’s claim of entitlement to service connection for depression. The undersigned then requested the assistance of the appropriate Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) official in an effort to obtain or otherwise account for such a Rating Decision. The official subsequently responded and stated that Appellant’s “claim file was reviewed, and it was found that the March 22, 2004 Rating Decision did include information regarding [Appellant’s] depression. The body of the decision mentions that an appeal was pending for a cervical spine injury along with other conditions, to include depression secondary to neck condition.” The information provided by the RO official corresponded with the March 22, 2004, Decision Review Officer (DRO) Decision. As such, the Secretary submits that the March 22, 2004, DRO Decision is presumably the same document referred to as the “VA rating decision dated March 22, 2004” in the July 5, 2018, Rating Decision. The undersigned notes that the March 22, 2004, DRO Decision is located in the RBA at R. at 2757-2761. Ok now am I crazy but the VA lawyer stated there was no final decision found in the record. The ro stated that the march decision stated that the mental health and 5 other issues were still in appeal status. So we're is the final decision? Lol So they aren't going to say it remain pending Or there isn't a final decision that was made that is part of the record. Lol smh See these are the things I am going through. It just crazy so now I go through a whole court case. Just for the court to say it remain pending in appeal status. An now my effective date for the mental health is 2001. This is the 3 time the buffalo ny regional office has just left my appeal in appeal status. This how I got 8 years retro tdiu. Just was up and thought I post and vent. I am doing 3 different appeal at the court right now and looking over 3 different copys of my record. One has a brief due in 7 days. The pro Bono program is to give a lawyer for only the purpose of a telephone conference. Under rule 33 if the court. I did the paperwork and still have gotten a response. An I got 7 days to do the brief if they don't put a lawyer on the case for a telephone conference. Ok do you think I am waiting to see if they do there job. My brief is done already. So that game will not work. An the court or the VA will not answer why they can't be or were not merger back together. So I fight I refuse to miss one deadline or not to get it right because I really feel this been done in purpose. But the fight continues an I am really enjoying it so I just be venting.

Ok I got a decision that granted a half step of smc. I am now smc l and a half. Well I have received the notification letter. Just the decision. Well I call today to see what going on they tell me they are reviewing it. What how does the ro review a bva decision. Are they just to implement it the decision. Smh. So now what they want me to fight for the extra 200.00 a month for four years. Smh I might be take this wrong but I have never heard of the ro feeling they have to review a bva judge decision. Told this can take up to one or two months. Has anyone had this happen after bva granted something.

I am get very upset with the VA and all it's games Ok I apply for mental health 2001. Got Deny and nod. Well the VA never cretifed the appeal again. So it sat in appeals status. Well 2018 I used service records to reopen the claim. Granted 70% Well the VA said they denied the claim. So when I got the record for the court. I dispute there is no decision that part of the record. Well here goes there response to the court. That that denial was part of the decision that granted tdiu. They are I guess saying it got denied in the body of the decision smh. This is what I am going through.lol In an RBA dispute filed with this Court on February 10, 2022, the pro se Appellant identified on p.1 of that Dispute that various citations in the record noted a March 22, 2004, Rating Decision in which Appellant’s depression claim was denied but that “(t)here is no decision that was made 3/22/04 that is part of the record.” The Secretary notes that Appellant is presumably basing this statement on a citation in a July 5, 2018, Rating Decision, which notes that the evidence considered in that decision contained a Rating Decision dated March 22, 2004. The undersigned reviewed Appellant’s RBA and electronic claims file in the Veterans’ Benefits Management System (VBMS) and could not locate a Rating Decision dated March 22, 2004, that mentioned a denial of Appellant’s claim of entitlement to service connection for depression. The undersigned then requested the assistance of the appropriate Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) official in an effort to obtain or otherwise account for such a Rating Decision. The official subsequently responded and stated that Appellant’s “claim file was reviewed, and it was found that the March 22, 2004 Rating Decision did include information regarding [Appellant’s] depression. The body of the decision mentions that an appeal was pending for a cervical spine injury along with other conditions, to include depression secondary to neck condition.” The information provided by the RO official corresponded with the March 22, 2004, Decision Review Officer (DRO) Decision. As such, the Secretary submits that the March 22, 2004, DRO Decision is presumably the same document referred to as the “VA rating decision dated March 22, 2004” in the July 5, 2018, Rating Decision. The undersigned notes that the March 22, 2004, DRO Decision is located in the RBA at R. at 2757-2761. As such, the Secretary considers the dispute as resolved.

Man this sit around waiting on a letter is mess with me I ain't call in two days. I feel I am upset my self for nothing then ppl ain't going to say anything. I keep looking on ebenfits trying to figure out what they granted. Smh. I can't get happy because last time the judge switch one month of smc s to smc l. I got 300.00 retro lol. I keep try to break it down there was only two issue left under the cavc remand docket. Smc o and r and loss of use under smc benfits smc m. Now they remand the loss of use for six months they comp exam shopp it I refuse there exam. I already had a favorable specialized loss of use comp exam done by the VA. Anyway the soc on address this. Not the smc o and r remand by the court. So my thought is it the smc r or o. Lol. All this in my head when they could of just put the letter for the smc. Ok I done venting again lol

Ok here is my first draft of the summary of issues. I feel like I miss something. But This should at least have something that the va lawyer will have to answer. After the telephone conference I just have to add the rba pages once the record is serve for this appeal to the court smh These are the issues that I would like addressed during my telephone conference First the court set aside the effective date and Remand them to the board January 30 2021 rba The board violated the court order and remanded them to the regional office to be granted in the first instance This is a major error and not legal An must be addressed. The lower court can’t change a higher court order The regional office made me do a new NOD to continue my appeal back to the board The regional office used the new nod to remove me from legacy appeal and the court remand docket. I never checked the box to remove my appeal from legacy appeal on there nod that was mail to me rba So how was this remove from legacy appeal and the cavc remand docket? The regional office has now turned my court remand in to a new 2021 appeal processed in the new appeal modernization system. I ask for all my issues to be merge back with the cavc remand docket rba Before any of this was done. Even wrote on the nod this is a cavc remand rba Never done now my smc benfit is been treated as new 2021 appeals this was all done to not address my effective dates for SMC S. Under Howell v Nicholson percendent Cavc remand are to be track in the vacol system. So how was my cavc remand treated this way it not legal. I ask that my whole case be addressed not just there errors of handling a cavc remand. 1. I have been ask for smc s housebound by fact to be addressed in my case for 4 years. Under Howell v Nicholson cavc percendent No one will address it or give me a proper decision or reason and base I have been confined to my home since 1993. The court has ruled that been confined to one home is not been able to leave to make a income. Howell v Nicholson percendent The Court held that leaving one’s house for medical purposes cannot, by itself, serve as the basis for finding that one is not “substantially confined” for purposes of special monthly compensation (SMC) housebound benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(s). Because the meaning of the term “substantially confined” is ambiguous and there is no regulatory interpretation, “the Court must determine the meaning” of the term “and the Board’s obligation” thereunder. Thompson v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 169, 175 (1995); see also Jackson and Cropper, both supra. The Secretary submits that the clear implication of this term is that the requirement that one be “substantially confined” is met when the claimant is restricted to his house except for medical treatment purposes. The Secretary, citing to Senate Report No. 1745 (June 27, 1960), notes that in passing section 1114(s) Congress intended to provide additional compensation for veterans who were unable to overcome their particular disabilities and leave the house in order to earn an income as opposed to an inability to leave the house at all. Mr. Howell does not contest this interpretation. Well I was denied because of I could travel to medical appointments 2001 I was granted tdiu pt One condition. 60% under rating code 5293. The board has used the false statement that my tdiu is based on all my condition to not address my smc benfits. To get tdiu based on more than one condition the combine rating must be 70%. So how is it possible that my pt tdiu 60% rating 2001 included other conditions? The law stated to not combine disabled if there is a chance at smc benfits. Va manual and cfr Next I was told it is irreverent that I am 25 years tdiu. Rba If I am tdiu for 25 years I must have never been able to leave my home to make a income because I couldn’t work. The va has my social security record which show I don’t Even have any work credits for Medicare or social security Because I have never work since injury in service. the board using it own interpretation of rating code 5293. By stating this rating code included system of my elbow/hand and neck. To not address or deny smc benfits This is not legal No where does rating code 5293 state this. The statement on the 2001 dro decision is not legal it sound like they were making a deal with me for my rating. To stop from inferring smc s back than. The board is aware that I have been permanent And total since 1993. And have not worked since injury in service. The extra schedulers tdiu pt rating decision from 2012 1993-2001 address this. Rba The dro decision tdiu pt 60% 2001 address this rba 1114; 38 C.F.R. § 3.352(a)(2019); SMC benefits are to be accorded when a veteran becomes eligible without need for a separate claim; Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 280, 294 (2008) (citing Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 118, 121 (1991)); Secretary’s duty to maximize benefits; Bradley, 22 Vet.App. at 294; see also AB v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 35, 38 (1992); the veterans affairs never address there error of never cretifed my appeal to the board 1993. And how it remaining pending in appeal status for 8 years. 1993-2001 And never address that I was granted extra schedulers tdiu pt rating from 1993+2001 And how it effects my effective dates for smc benfits. I was never give a reason and base that address this. Or why I wasn’t granted or inferred smc s housebound by fact 1993. Or 2001 or 2012 when the veteran affairs had all the evidence. That I was pt and housebound. I was never given a reason and base 2. June 29 2021 the bva judge remand loss of use under smc benfits again after a cavc remand This time the judge stated my condition has improved and that he is not accepting the specialized loss of use exam order.Rba Because the examiner didn’t make a determination that I had loss of use. This is not legal and was done to once again not address my smc benfits and to put a unfavorable medical opinion in my record after a cavc remand this is not legal. The law the va is volating in my case. Responsibility for Determining LOU The responsibility for determining whether there is loss of use (LOU) of an extremity • rests with the rating activity, and • cannot be delegated to the examining physician. c. Information to Request From an Examiner to Determine LOU When requesting an examination to determine LOU of an extremity, ask the examiner to furnish a • detailed objective description of remaining function • quantitative assessment of strength for each extremity involved, and • description of any pain that affects use. Do not request that the examiner • determine LOU, or • express an opinion as to whether there is, or is not, LOU of an extremity or extremities. Note: If LOU cannot be determined upon review of an examination report, request an appropriate specialized examination. References: For more information on • considering functional loss due to pain in claims for SMC, see Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App 369, 374 (1998), and • requesting a specialist examination, see M21-1, Part III, Subpart iv, 3.A.6. d. Determining the Extent of Examinations in Claims Involving SMC Under 38 U.S.C. 1114(l) Through (n) Exercise considerable care when requesting examinations in connection with claims involving SMC under 38 U.S.C. 1114(1) through (n). But the board rejected my 25 year record and the specialized comp exam and use a statement that my condition has improved. To shop for an unfavorable medical opinion after a cavc remand. This is a cavc remand. The board isnt to be shop for a unfavorable medical opinion. By law So the judge remand was not legal the examiner isn’t to make the determination the rating activity is. I have a 25 year record of loss of use and over 20 comp exam and a extra schedulers tdiu bva decision and dro tdiu decision which all address my history of loss of use. I even had 6 comp exam and a specialized loss of use exam. Since applying 2018 I receive in home care because of my loss of use. I have ch 31 independent living records that address my loss of use. All this evidence is part of my record. But the board will not address any evidence or give a decision or a reason and base. They have never inferred it or address it after the many exams and even after a remand. So I guess it remaining pending in appeal status. This must be addressed. Smc benfits are granted by the record and effective by the record and inferred by the record Why is my smc benfits appeal not been treated this way. 3. Exam and when can a veteran can say he has enough evidence and ask for a decision based on his record. Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 305, 312 (2003) (Court noted that it would not be permissible for VA to undertake further development if purpose was to obtain evidence against appellant’s case) Might also look at: Adams v. Principi, 256 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2001), (in which the court stated that it would be improper for the Veterans Court to remand a case to the Board to give the DVA another opportunity to develop evidence needed to satisfy an evidentiary burden it had failed to satisfy the first time, i.e., to “attempt to introduce new evidence sufficient to make up the shortfall” in the agency’s proof. Id. At 1322. My case is a cavc remand why is the va still trying to order exam and medical opinion After the court remand . The June 29 judge remand is not legal on my loss of use under smc benfits 4. Why is the va treating my smc benfits appeal as a increase rating claim and treating each smc benfit as a claim. Even after I withdraw the increase rating 2018 because of there errors My smc benfits claim and appeal now has over 5 bva judge that have rule on it. Each smc is been treated as a claim. I don’tthink that many judges retired for this to be possible in one year for this to be possible Some smc have been processed in legacy and some process in the new appeal system. No one will address this not legal smc benfits is it owe thing and has it own ruled on how to handle them and process No one will address this. Smc is to be inferred by the record and effective and granted by the record. I refuse anymore exams when my case was remand by the court and ask for a decision based on my record and effective by my record. The bva judge address this and still order exams and even stated that my condition improved June 29 2021 remand To be able to order more exams after a cavc remand The inspector general has issue a report on the va about the veterans affairs ordering unnecessary comp exams. 5. If the board has been aware since 1993 that I have never been able to leave my home to make a income. And I was granted extra schedulers tdiu pt rating because I have never work since service. Why isn’t my effective dates for smc s housebound by fact not 1993 date of service. By law. Court need to address this or have va give a reason and base If the dro granted tdiu pt 60% one condition. And address my need of help of other. With the lay statement from my ex about my need of help and the extra schedulers tdiu pt rating decision also address it Why isnt effective date for my smc l go back to 2001 or 1993 when this decision was made. the board was aware I need help other and never inferred smc benfits. 2001 and 2012 Loss of use three extremities for smc benfits The extra schedulers tidu decision and the dro tdiu decision address my loss of use. Elbow/hand and upper extremity even try to include it with rating code 5293 Smc benfits for loss of use was never inferred 1993-2001-2012-even now. And I still can’t get them address even after I apply for them or give a reason and base Even after the cavc remand it. 6. The veteran affairs has been aware not to try and include my elbow/hand and to address all this in my case since 1997. This must be addressed and I should be given a reason and base. When I was stage rated 20% under rating code 5293 1993-2001. 2012 extra schedulers tdiu rating decision.rba There is no reason and base for them to be try to stated my rating code included anything other than my neck. Decision Assessment Document VAOPGCPREC 36-97, Dec 12, 1997, Applicability of 38 CFR §§ 4.40, 4.45, and 3.321(b)(1) in Rating Disability Under Diagnostic Code 5293 (Intervertebral Disc Syndrome) Office of General Counsel Precedent Opinion What the case is about Whether Diagnostic Code (DC) 5293, intervertebral disc syndrome (IDS), is based upon loss of range of motion, and therefore whether 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 are applicable in determining the extent of a veteran’s disability due to IDS. Whether 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 must be considered where a veteran receives less than the maximum schedular rating under DC 5293, but that rating corresponds to the maximum schedular rating under another diagnostic code pertaining to limitation of motion. Whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) must be considered when a veteran receives less than the maximum rating under DC 5293, irrespective of whether 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 must be applied in such a case. Impact on VBA Diagnostic Code (DC) 5293, intervertebral disc syndrome (IDS), involves loss of range of motion because the nerve defects and resulting pain associated with injury to the sciatic nerve may cause limitation of motion of the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar vertebrae. Therefore, pursuant to Johnson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 7 (1996), 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45 must be considered when a disability is evaluated under this diagnostic code. When a veteran has received less than the maximum evaluation under DC 5293 based upon symptomatology which includes limitation of motion, consideration must be given to the extent of the disability under 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45, even though the rating corresponds to the maximum rating under another diagnostic code pertaining to limitation motion. The BVA must address entitlement to an extraschedular rating under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) if there is evidence of “exceptional or unusual” circumstances indicating that the rating schedule, including 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, and 4.71a, may be inadequate to compensate for the average impairment of earning capacity due to IDS, regardless of the fact that a veteran may have received the maximum schedular rating under a diagnostic code based upon limitation of motion.

Ok here it is I did a petition asking the court to sanction the veterans affairs. For mishandling of a cavc remand order. I have been waiting over two months for a decision to come out the judge chambers. This very different to me. So I had to go back to the last thing the judge put in on the case and see if I miss something. Well after reading it over I feel the judge is about to come down on the veterans affairs. There are laws on how a cavc remand is to be handle. There is a case Grove vs veterans affairs. We're the court address how cavc remand should be handle and track in the system. The court was going to sanction the veterans affairs in that case but The court choose to send memo to every droc. Telling them how to handle cavc remand and to process them in vacol. Well the veterans affairs has volate the memo and law in my case. From my reading the judge told the va something is wrong in so many words. I think give them a chance to get it right. Well the veterans affairs told the court it was ok the way they process the cavc remand. I will post the response they use to Address the Court. I can't see It any other way but that the court is about to make a big decision. It doesn't take almost 3 month for no cavc decision once it in a judge chambers. If they were going to denied the petition. Tell me what you guys think On July 6, 2021, self-represented veteran filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. Mr asserts that a writ of mandamus is necessary to compel VA to take action on his claims remanded by the Court in January 2021. Petition at 1; see v. McDonough, No. 20-4110, 2021 WL 485865 (Jan. 29, 2021). Among other things, Mr. asserts that VA has improperly bifurcated the remanded claims by assigning a new docket number to his appeal of the evaluation assigned for his psychiatric disorder and that, as a result, the matter is not being treated expeditiously. Petition at 5-6. In a September 13, 2021, supplemental response, the Secretary explained that the claims were initially bifurcated because, due to administrative error, the psychiatric disorder claim was listed in the tracking system as in a different stage of the adjudication process and, therefore, could not be part of the appeal certified to the Board in a May 2021 VA Form 8. Supplemental Response at 5. As for whether the two appeal streams can be merged now that the error has been corrected, the Secretary included a declaration from the Board's Deputy Vice Chairman explaining that "[l]egacy appeal records can only be merged by the Board if they are actively assigned to the Board . . . at the same time." Id., Appendix A at 3. The Secretary's explanations address the question of why Mr. psychiatric disorder claim was—and remains—bifurcated from the others remanded by the Court in January 2021. However, it is unresponsive to Mr assertion that, by assigning a 2021 docket number, his appeal of that issue is not being treated expeditiously as it should be under 38 U.S.C. § 7112. Compare id., Appendix B, Exhibit M (showing that Mr psychiatric disorder appeal is categorized as "Original" and assigned docket number 2100585), with id., Exhibit AA (showing that increased SMC appeal is categorized as a "Court Remand" and assigned docket number 1909416). The Secretary asserts that the psychiatric disorder claim "will be considered according to its place on the docket," id. at 14, but has not explained what that place is or whether it reflects expeditious treatment based on the Court's January 2021 remand. Furthermore, Mr. asserts that all of these matters, both the psychiatric claims and the SMC issues, were advanced on the docket when they were first before the Board, but that postremand they are no longer in that status. See Petition at 1. The Secretary asserts that Mr.has been notified how he can request that his appeals again be advanced on the docket, Supplemental Response at 5, but has not explained why, if VA had previously determined that advancement was warranted, the appeals did not remain in that status following the Court's remand. Consequently, the Court requires additional information from the Secretary. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 21(d). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Secretary, within 10 days after the date of this order, file a supplemental response to the petition, addressing the specific allegations that Mr psychiatric disorder appeal is not being handled expeditiously and that none of his appeals have been advanced on the Board's docket. The Secretary should provide any documentation pertinent to the Court's resolution of this matter. DATED: November 4, 2021

I was unfairly denied service connection at the BVA for multiple disabilities The CAVC overturned the Board decisions so back I go to the Board in hope of getting treated fairly A win is a win no matter how you slice it.

My battle with the VA continues. Got some appeals at the CAVC. I have other appeals at the Board. Looks like my attorneys are fighting hard for me at the CAVC I wonder how long it takes to get a CAVC decision? Daniels Rule 33 Summary of the Issues.pdf

In February 1975 I was discharged from service I applied for compensation for a head injury in July 1975 and was denied in 1976 then in 1984 I was awarded 100% for seizure disorder secondary to my in service traumatic head injury. In 2009 I applied for TBI and was awarded 70% for direct service connection in 2011, I requested an earlier effective date for my TBI since my original claim was in 1975 less then 5 months after my ETS, I feel my original claim should have been reconsidered but the RO and the BVA overlooked my original claim so I took it to the CAVC and waiting for a decision.

I read BVA decision every week and found this case sited a few times- https://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/documents/NoahBM15-334.pdf The CAVC remanded the case back to the BVA, and the last sentence in the conclusion was one I have never seen before in any VA or CAVC decision. The veteran claimed he had received misleading info from the VA that was detrimental to his claim. "Given the Board's concession that the January 1982 notice was misleading, R. at 8, the appellant may wish to seek equitable relief pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 503(a)." I dont have time to fully read the case-yet but I am surprised at the conclusion statement. Equitable Relief info is here at hadit, but very hard to succeed in. It appears that this veteran could succeed under 38 USC 503 (a).