BIG Court WIN- TDIU -CCK law firm

[Berta]

https://cck-law.com/news/CCK-wins-precedential-case-TDIU-meaning-substantially-gainful-employment

[Buck52]

Great News from CCK   This will certainly help Future Veterans.

 

[Berta]

I contacted CCK- they will let me know if they can do a blog radio show here on this important case.

[Buck52]

Great Ms Berta

I'll be  sure listen in on the show. I have problems listing to Gerald  I guess because his voice is gravely,

I can Understand Alex ok   he talks loud and clear...some times I think maybe they get to close to the microphone and their voice is distorted   but I also have a Hearing Problems too. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by Buck52

[broncovet]

If CCK does a blog, I have a question for them:

Why is this called a "win" when its a remand so the law firm will likely get paid with EAJA fees, while its "back to the drawing board" for the Veteran, and certainly no retro or other tdiu benefits (such as Chapter 35) will likely be paid to the Veteran  for at least several MORE years.    He will now have to go to an "expiditious" BVA decision.  (The CAVC hasnt defined "expiditous treatment" either, to my knowledge).    Then, if the Expiditious BVA decision really is expiditious, and the VARO expidtiously decides an implementing decision, now the Veteran can go through the entire process again with the effective date, beginning with a VARO decision and appeal, a ramp appeal, a bva appeal, and often another CAVC appeal.  

How do I know this?  Because I, too "won" a remand for 4.16(b), extraschedular TDIU, in 2012, (after the 2009 VARO decision called tdiu "moot", which also had to be appealed, because that wasnt defined either.)  and Im still in appeals on the effective date.  My claim date for TDIU was 2002.  

Remands like this are the kind of things causing Veterans to get very very old before their claim is REALLY decided, noting that a remand is not appealable until finally adjuticated.   

[Buck52]

This is what is very important.

Quote from CCK

''Precedential means that this decision will be persuasive for VA when deciding subsequent cases with similar fact patterns.  In its decision, the Court outlined certain standards for VA to uphold when adjudicating the issue of TDIU.  Specifically, it clarified the meaning of the phrase “unable to secure and follow substantially gainful employment”, which is a determining factor in deciding whether a veteran is entitled to TDIU.  Therefore, the Court’s decision in Ray v. Wilkie will have a significant effect going forward for veterans seeking TDIU benefits.

''CCK noted the importance of the Court’s decision in finally establishing standards for VA so that not only will adjudication be more consistent, but also veterans applying for TDIU will know what to expect.''

Edited April 2, 2019 by Buck52

[Berta]

Here is the case:

https://efiling.uscourts.cavc.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom?servlet=ShowDoc&dls_id=01205667725&caseId=93751&dktType=dktPublic

They will call me back if they can do a show on it.