Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • 01-2024-stay-online-donate-banner.png

     

  • 0

Cushman Vs Shinseki

Rate this question


broncovet

Question

  • Lead Moderator

According to Bergman and Moore, a law firm representing Veterans against the VA, this case is important for Veterans as it preserves VA benefits and the VA's denial of "due process". Article follows, it is from B&M website Aug. 2009:

On August 12, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court that hears appeals from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, issued a decision that creates a new way to challenge an adverse VA decision. In Cushman v. Shinseki, No. 2008-7129 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2009), the court held that applicants for veterans disability benefits have a constitutionally protected property interest in their entitlement to those benefits, of which they cannot be deprived without due process of law. Although it is well-settled that recipients of government benefits have a protected property interest in those benefits, the federal courts of appeals have been split on whether those seeking such benefits are entitled to constitutional due process of law. The court answered that question in the affirmative. The court held that veterans acquire such a property interest because veterans disability benefits are non-discretionary, statutorily mandated benefits to which a veteran is entitled by satisfying of the requirements governing entitlement thereto.

The facts in Cushman were particularly egregious. A VA employee apparently altered medical evidence so it would appear less favorable to Mr. Cushman’s claim. The court held that VA’s continued adjudication of his claim with this tainted piece of evidence in the record deprived him of entitlement to the sought-after benefits without due process of law. In so doing, it permitted him to overcome the finality of a prior 1980 Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision, and ordered a new hearing of his 1977 claim denied in that decision. It is through this ability to circumvent the finality of prior adverse decisions where Cushman may have its most significant impact.

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit will now have to wrestle with how egregious the VA action or omission must be to rise to the level of a deprivation of due process of law. In Gambill v. Shinseki, No. 2008-7120 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2009), for example, the Federal Circuit rejected the veteran’s argument that he was deprived due process of law by not being allowed to serve written interrogatories on the VA physician who prepared an adverse medical opinion. The court acknowledged Cushman, but declined to address whether due process of law compelled the relief Mr. Gambill sought. It held that even if such a right existed, VA’s failure to provide it to Mr. Gambill did not prejudice him. In separate, non-binding opinions, however, one of the panel’s judges explained why she believes due process of law compels providing claimants the opportunity to confront VA physicians who prepare the dispositive medical opinions in their claims, while another explained why he does not.

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

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


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • spazbototto earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Paul Gretza earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Troy Spurlock went up a rank
      Community Regular
    • KMac1181 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • jERRYMCK earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 0 replies
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 replies
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use