Jump to content
  • Donation Box

    Please donate to support the community.
    We appreciate all donations!
  • Advertisemnt

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims

    questions-001@3x.png

    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
     
  • Ads

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • Advertisemnt

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

Sponsored Ads

  •  ad-free-subscription-002.jpeg     fund-the-site.jpg

  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

  • 0
carlie

Arneson V. Shinsek

Question

I wonder if this memorandum can be applied to BVA board (panel)

decisions that were adjudicated in the past ?

Any takers ?

From vetlawyers / Bergmann & Moore

http://www.vetlawyers.com/newsletters/may2011Newsletter.pdf

Page 5

Arneson v. Shinsek

" CAVC HOLDS THAT CLAIMANTS HAVE A

RIGHT TO A PERSONAL HEARING BEFORE

ALL BOARD MEMBERS WHO ULTIMATELY

DECIDE THE APPEAL"

" This decision is about fairness,” said Glenn Bergmann, Mr.

Arneson’s attorney. “We knew that once the judges

looked at the process, they would make the right decision.

We are happy to have played a role in it.” As a result of this

decision, the Chairman of the Board of Veterans Appeals

issued a memorandum on May 12 2011."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

The Court thus held that “the pertinent statutes and

implementing regulation regarding Board hearings entitle a

claimant to an opportunity for a hearing before all the Board

members who will ultimately decide his appeal”

I guess they figure to show a little heart before they deny it for the last time! ha

Coot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ad

Arneson vs Shinseki is a panel CAVC decision so it is precedential and binding upon the BVA. The question is whether its binding retroactively, (in the past). CUE errors only apply to the laws at the time of the decision so if it is CUE you are seeking, it appears Arneson wont help you.

However, it would appear this is about an interpretation of the law, so the "effective date" of the interpretion may be up for grabs. Remember, under the old laws, claims had to be "well grounded". After that was dropped, the VA could never again deny a claim because it was not "well grounded".

I dont know what would happen if you had a claim denied because it was "not well grounded" and try to "CUE" it on that basis today. You might be able to find that and my guess would be that it would apply to this case, also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all that I posted below, there is another regulation about "liberalizing" laws. A "liberalizing" law means that they used to deny them on this, but the law changed so they cant deny it on that basis anymore. I think the Veteran gets the more favorable version applied.

If that is the case, then Arneson may help you after all. However, if this is an unappealed decision (ie. Cue) then I dont know which would apply...the "liberalizing" law, or the strict interpretation of CUE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bronco,

I have no idea why you are bringing in issues like claims for CUE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought up the issue of CUE because you asked,

"I wonder if this memorandum can be applied to BVA board (panel)

decisions that were adjudicated in the past ?"

...You did not mention if the "Board Decision" that was adjudicated in the past was timely appealed or not. If it was timely appealed, then, it does not appear that CUE would apply. However, decisions not timely appealed, as well as some EED appeals, fall under the stricter CUE standards.

Arneson appears to establish a precedent...that is, that claimants have a right to a personal hearing from all board members. Therefore, if the VA fails to give claimants a right to a personel hearing, then that would be a legal error. I dont know if this "legal error" of failing to give claimans the right to a personal hearing would rise to the Cue level or not, but if the claimant could establish that the VA improperly denied them the right to a hearing, then one could argue that this legal error rises to CUE criteria, since the VA is not free to ignore its own regulations. They must follow the laws, and if they dont, the Veteran can argue this is CUE. Of course, the Cue error would need to be outcome determinative, and be based on the laws at that time.

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Ads

  • Ad

  • Latest News
  • Our picks

    • I filed for my mitral valve regurgitation heart disease secondary to a service-connected condition on 7-30-18. It was granted on 8-30-18. Since I filed for this heart valve issue and was awarded, can I still file for hypertension ? I have been seeing comments that you should file for hypertension first and file for heart disease as a secondary. Can I file for hypertension as a secondary to my heart disease ? I am alittle confused on this matter.

      Dan
    • How to Change the Theme - Look and Colors
      How to Change the Theme - Look and Colors
      • 5 replies
    • For Calculating Retro

      VA Disability Compensation Rates 2012 | 2011 | 2010-2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999

      Prior to 1999 check here https://www.hadit.com/va-disability-compensation-rates-historic-for-retro-calculation/
      • 0 replies
    • I am a 100% disabled veteran, At first I was super excited to find out I am getting retro pay for back benefits to 2006. But that was over 2 months ago. I been waiting and waiting and calling to ask them wheres my back pay. They first told me "one month" than I call again. The guy started reading a script of basically "we are malingering on paying you" type crap. I was wondering if there is any number I can call besides that 800-827-1000 number to inquire about my status. I don't know why its taken so long when there is specific information telling them from the judge that VA owes. 

      There was a remanded to see if I was eligible for IU (I get it now since 2014 im actually 90% with 10 of that been IU). I been on SS since 2004. Can Someone help me out? Thank you
      • 6 replies
    • You might have a 38 CFR 3.156 situation-

      meaning the VA might have considered your claim in 95/96 as "not well grounded" and failed to even get your STRs.Or they did get your STRs but never considered the specific entry you cited here.

      Lots of discussion under a search, of 38 CFR. 3.156 (a)(b) (c) ---here is a winner:

      https://community.hadit.com/topic/52994-cue-in-failing-to-apply-the-provisions-of-38-cfr-§-3156c-for-effective-date/

      o

       
        • Thanks
×

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines