Vet App Numbers

[free_spirit_etc]

I am trying to figure out how to find the Vet App numbers to cite a case. I know if the case has been cited I can find it through a search. But how do you figure out the Vet App number otherwise. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the number printed on the case.

[Berta]

That is a good question free-spirit.

I think you mean ….

how does one find a BVA case that rendered a CAVC decision?

The CAVC decision will have the CAVC docket number and name of the claimant, and contain a decision date for the BVA decision the CAVC case was appealed on.But no refer reference to the actual vetapp number.

In a few cases, I called the CAVC claimant's lawyer or emailed them to ask for the BVA vetapp number.

I am sure I found Doug Rosinski and Bob Walsh willing to either give me the vet app # or give me a few pertinent key words to search under.at the BVA.

One of Bob Walsh's court cases involved leichiaemanius. That BVA denial was fairly easy for me to find without the vetapp number.(once I spelled it correctly)

I have found other BVA vetapp cases from the CAVC decisions.It takes time because I searched at BVA under the year date that was in the CAVC case,by using key words from the CAVC decision describing the claim.Sometimes I used just the lawyers name if the lawyer had repped them at the BVA.

Of course many claims are for the same disability so I had to search for either quotes from the BVA decision in the CAVC case or any other key words or phrases that seemed to be only specific to the CAVC case, and then search those words at the BVA.

There was a CAVC case a few ago that a advocate here in NY called me about,that involved the .CLL regulations.Th veterans and his wife had prepared the entire case themselves with no lawyer at the CAVC...( and they eventually won on a JMR)

and the advocate asked if I could try to find the BVA decision.

I expected that to take hours but it took minutes. The CLL regs were so new and so clear cut that there were very few appeals at the BVA on CLL.I read them all and suddenly knew I had the exact BVA vetapp that the CAVC case was about.I compared both cases carefully and, when I was 100% sure of it,I emailed the advocate the BVA link to the case that was still before the CAVC.

Is this what you meant?

Actually the court is very user friendly and I have called or emailed CAVC a few times over the years:

http://www.uscourts.cavc.gov/contact.php

I am not sure, but t he court clerk might be able to give you the VetApp number you need. If that is what you man.

[free_spirit_etc]

Thanks Berta. I wondered where they came up with those magic numbers.

I just used the claims number and sent a copy of the decision.

1. See Bowers vs. Shinseki, Veterans Claims No. 11-3022 (2012) which discusses the distinction between a layperson repeating data reported in professional medical treatises, as opposed to offering his own subjective opinion, stating “a layperson is competent to report information provided by a medical professional. Cf. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that a veteran is competent to repeat a medical diagnosis and report observable symptoms)”. A non-presidential decision may be cited "for any persuasiveness or reasoning it contains." See Bethea v. Derwinski, 252, 254 (1992).

1. See Bowers vs. Shinseki, Veterans Claims No. 11-3022 (2012) which discusses the Board’s failure to consider treatise evidence on the growth rate of gallstones that “if accepted, would seem to require little more than the application of arithmetic principles to establish service connection for the residuals.” A non-presidential decision may be cited "for any persuasiveness or reasoning it contains." See Bethea v. Derwinski, 252, 254 (1992).

[free_spirit_etc]

I am counting on my IMOs for my claim. But the IMOs were not in the record as of the day of my husband's death for the accrued benefits claim. So I was seeing what I could cite to help the BVA put some weight on the treatise evidence.

I understand non-precedential decisions carry no "weight" but I figured citing this was better than not citing this in this case.

Dang it! It looks like spell check changed my spelling from non-precedential to non-presidential.

Now I am going to look retarded...

[Berta]

I was able to find the exact BVA case that the CAVC appeal was filed on.

http://www.index.va.gov/search/va/view.jsp?FV=http://www.va.gov/vetapp10/Files4/1036721.txt

Bowers V Shinseki was a case whereby the widow of the veteran ,deceased after filing his appeal, had substituted herself as the claimant at the Court.

I think it is important to repeat the ALS AO regs here...I still feel many AO ALS vets don't know they can be service connected under these 2009 regulations. Since ALS is a terminal disease,I bet there are many widows who might be eligible for DIC under these regulations, too, but don't know it.

Mr Bowers died due to ALS, which VA made presumptive to Agent Orange exposure in 2009.

But the premise of the ALS presumptive claim was fatally flawed .

Excerpt from decision below:
“Although Mrs. Bowers argues that, because Mr. Bowers served, according to his
DD Form-214, R. at 365, on “active service” for more than 90 consecutive days, he is entitled to the presumption of service connection for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, the Secretary has limited that presumption to only those who served 90 consecutive days of “active military, naval, or air service,” 38 C.F.R. § 3.318 (emphasis added). As explained above, this language implies a requirement that the individual attain veteran status, in that the statutory definition of “active military, naval, or air service” excludes those who have served on active duty for training regardless of the length of that service–unless it can be shown that “the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated” during that period of active duty for training. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24)(B). Thus, even though Mr. Bowers served on “active service” for more than 90 consecutive days, R. at 365, he is not entitled to the presumption of service connection for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis because he is not a veteran for VA disability compensation purposes.“

That unfortunately is a requirement of this regulation.Mr Bowers did not fit into any direct SC regulation either. The court affirmed the BVA denial.

This is the ALS AO Fast Letter:

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans Benefits Administration

Washington, D.C. 20420

June 5, 2009

Director (00/21)

All VA Regional Offices and Centers

In Reply Refer to: 211D

Fast Letter 09-27

SUBJ: Final rule: Presumptive Service Connection for AL Amyloidosis

Purpose

A final rulemaking amending 38 CFR 3.309(e) by adding AL amyloidosis to the

list of presumptive diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents

was published in the Federal Register on May 7, 2009, at 74 FR 21258.

Background

In June 2008, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs decided to establish a

presumption of service connection for AL amyloidosis based on exposure to

herbicides used in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. The decision

was based on a published report by the National Academy of Sciences Institute

of Medicine 2006 update (published in 2007) that concluded a limited or

suggestive association between AL amyloidosis and herbicide exposure exists.

Description

AL “amyloid light chain” amyloidosis (primary amyloidosis also abbreviated ALA)

is a disease in which abnormal protein, the light chain of an immunoglobulin, is

deposited in organs interfering with the structure and function of the organ. The

cause is unknown.

AL amyloidosis can progress rapidly and is often far advanced by the time it

is diagnosed. The disease causes death in 1 to 3 years. AL amyloidosis is a rare

disease. It has an estimated annual incidence of 1/100,000; approximately 2,000

new cases per year in the United States.

Effective Date

The amendment is effective May 7, 2009. It applies to all applications for

benefits pending before VA on or received after May 7, 2009. The effective date

provisions of Nehmer at 38 CFR 3.816 apply to certain previously denied claims.

Further Guidance

Follow guidance in Fast Letter 09-09 for appropriate transfer and adjudication of

claims. The Philadelphia Resource Center will process all ALA claims with a

previous denial where Nehmer applies. The regional office of jurisdiction should

process an initial claim for ALA. This regulation amendment allows for

presumptive service connection for only AL amyloidosis. ALA should be rated by

analogy to Diagnostic Code 7715 (7799-7715).

Since the disease is incurable and progressive, the disease should be rated as

an active disease process assigning a 100% evaluation with no future

examination. A regulation establishing a new Diagnostic Code for ALA will be

developed.

Questions

Questions concerning the final rulemaking or this letter should be emailed to

VAVBAWAS/CO/21FL.

/S/

Bradley G. Mayes

Director

Compensation and Pension Service

[free_spirit_etc]

That is interesting Berta, and good information!

I cited a different Bowers case though -- where the veteran submitted treatise evidence about the growth rate of gall stones:

http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/648de5cc-e576-4eba-a649-b480d3970037/1/doc/