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

The Evolution Of The Pending Claim Doctrine

Rate this question


deltaj

Question

  • HadIt.com Elder

I found the most fascinating document online entitled The Evolution of the Pending Claim Doctrine written by a couple of really brilliant attorneys with the Board of Veterans Appeals. Please put up a link to this online document because I am sure that it would be useful to those people who are still battling V.A. for an earlier effective date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Answers 5
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Top Posters For This Question

5 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • Lead Moderator

Jim and Delta

Thank you for these most informative posts. I read the 39 page document and wished I would have read this two years ago, as it would have saved a lot of time and effort, concentrating on the issues that matter, in regard to the effective date.

There is simply no point in a Veteran persuing a benefit when a similar court has already stricken it down. Instead, the Veteran needs to modify his approach for an effective date, taking into account this document.

The BIG issue seems to be whether or not to file a "CUE". Of course, CUE only applies to a final claim, but, the pending claim doctrine may render the claim "non final" and instantly destroy the CUE.

In my appeal, I am using both alternates: 1) The pending claim doctrine and also 2) collaterally attacking the claim based on CUE to cover both bases. I really can not decide for sure to which category mine is, and I dont want to take another 4 years making the wrong choice.

I am hoping the BOARD will let me propose both alternates: Cue and the pending claim doctrine. For me, the more favorable is the pending claim doctrine, as I dont have to meet CUE standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am hoping the BOARD will let me propose both alternates: Cue and the pending claim doctrine. For me, the more favorable is the pending claim doctrine, as I dont have to meet CUE standards.

bronco,

This might pertain to the above.

Several recent Court and United States Court of Appeals for

the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) decisions address this

type of situation, where an alternate theory of service

connection is presented to the Board. In Roebuck v.

Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 307 (2006), which concerned both

direct and presumptive service connection, the Court noted

that although there may be multiple theories or means of

establishing entitlement to a benefit for a disability, if

the theories all pertain to the same benefit for the same

disability, they constitute the same claim. Id. at 313; see

also Schroeder v. West, 212 F.3d 1265, 1269-71 (Fed. Cir.

2000); Bingham v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 470, 474 (2004),

aff'd, 421 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

The Board also notes that this case is distinct from the type

of scenario addressed in Robinson v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App.

545, 551-52 (2008). That case concerned a new theory of

service connection that had been raised by the representative

on appeal to the Court, rather than prior to the Board's

adjudication. In that case, the Court affirmed that although

there may be multiple theories or means of establishing

entitlement to a benefit for a disability, if the theories

all pertain to the same benefit for the same disability, they

constitute the same claim.

The Court nevertheless found that the Board is not required to sua sponte

raise and reject all possible theories of entitlement in order

to render a valid opinion

even though it is required to consider all theories

of entitlement raised either by the claimant or by the

evidence of record as part of the nonadversarial

administrative adjudication process. Id.

http://www4.va.gov/vetapp08/files5/0839355.txt

Carlie passed away in November 2015 she is missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Lead Moderator

Thanks, Carlie

The case you cited seems to answer the question unambiguously: The Veteran can propose multiple theories on which he is entitled to benefits, and the Board must address them all, assuming a broad interpretation that this does NOT just apply to whether the Veterans condition is direct or presumptive, but on legal theories as well, such as the pending claim doctrine, deemed denials, CUE, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HadIt.com Elder

x

x

x

Delta, Carlie, Be sure to sign up' or read on-line:

BVA Veterans Law Review http://www.bva.va.gov/VLR.asp

Edited by Wings

USAF 1980-1986, 70% SC PTSD, 100% TDIU (P&T)

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


  • 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