Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts | Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users
- 0
BVA Motion to Revise
Rate this question
Ask Your VA Claims Question | Current Forum Posts | Search | Rules | View All Forums
VA Disability Articles | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users
Rate this question
Question
Berta
https://www.index.va.gov/search/va/bva_search.jsp?QT=Motion+to+Revise&EW=&AT=&ET=&RPP=10&DB=2020&DB=2019&DB=2018&DB=2017&DB=2016&DB=2015&DB=2014&DB=2013&DB=2012&DB=2011&DB=2010&DB=2009&DB=2008&DB=2007&DB=2006&DB=2005&DB=2004&DB=2003&DB=2002&DB=2001&DB=2000&DB=1999&DB=1998&DB=1997&DB=1996&DB=1995&DB=1994&DB=1993&DB=1992
"CONCLUSION OF LAW The May 2018 Board decision is final, and the criteria to reverse or revise the decision based on CUE is dismissed without prejudice to refiling. 38 U.S.C. § 7111, 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1400, 20.1403, 20.1404."
That supports the past advice here that CUE is NOT a one shot deal.
BVA posts that statement when the veteran has not perfected their CUE as to identifying a legal error the BVA made, to their detriment.
Interesting case- The veteran however did well in some respects:
"Indeed, the moving party’s December 2018 motion for revision due to CUE refers to multiple errors (discussed above) made by the Board, but it fails to articulate how those errors concern the Board’s denial of the increased rating for PTSD disability. Because the moving party’s pleadings do not specifically identify any alleged error or errors in the Board’s May 2018 decision as to either facts or law, the Board concludes that the moving party’s motion to reverse or revise the Board’s December 1985 decision lacks the necessary specificity as required to constitute a valid motion for revision or reversal based on CUE."
https://www.va.gov/vetapp19/files10/19177805.txt
Also the BVA made this further point on CUE: in above decision,
"Moreover, the Board notes that the Veteran has successfully initiated an appeal as to the RO’s March 2018 rating decision that assigned an effective date of October 13, 2017 for award of TDIU and there is no final adjudication of that assigned effective date upon which to consider CUE. Consideration of whether the implicit decline of jurisdiction over issue of TDIU prior to October 13, 2017 would have resulted in an ultimately different outcome is premature at this time. In this regard, a review of the claims file shows that the RO has acknowledged receipt of the Veteran’s December 2018 notice of disagreement and action on the part of the Board is not warranted at this time. See Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37, 44-46 (2009). The issue of earlier effective date for award of TDIU has been referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction for appropriate action."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
Popular Days
May 3
1
Top Posters For This Question
Berta 1 post
Popular Days
May 3 2020
1 post
0 answers 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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now