Cavc remand

[Mr cue]

Man I am really sit here try to figure this one out.

Ok here is the cavc remand.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, the portion of the January 30, 2020, Board decision 
finding that Mr. October 2018 NOD did not encompass that portion of the July 5, 2018, 
rating decision granting a 70% evaluation, but no higher, for a psychiatric disorder is REVERSED
and the matter is REMANDED for further adjudication; the portions of the January 30, 2020, 
Board decision denying an effective date before May 9, 2018, for the grant of SMC and entitlement 
to SMC in excess of the housebound rate, from May 9 to July 17, 2018, and at the aid-and-
attendance rate from that point are SET ASIDE and the matters are REMANDED for further 
development, if necessary, and readjudication consistent with this decision; and the balance of the 
appeal is DISMISSED.
DATED: January 29, 2021

 

Ok now the board change the cavc order and granted the same effective dates set a side by the court.

An remand them To be granted in the first instance.

So the board volate the court order.

The cavc set them a side an told the board to address early period.

 So now the droc DC just used the nod that was send to me to continue my appeal.

An remove the issue from the cavc remand docket which is to be expidate and return to the board.

An now it's in the new appeal system I never check the box to opt in. Smh.

An now been treated as a new appeal with a docket of 2021. In the new appeal system

This is part of my petition for extraordinary relief.

The Board response to the court.

They it ok to change my docket. Lol that was it.

Told the court that the board found that they need to be granted in the first instance.

So now I guess the board doesn't have to follow cavc remand order now. Smh

 

 

It's been with judge almost 7 weeks.

And it with the chief judge the same judge who did my case an set it a side.

And the judge was part of the grove cavc decision.

I even ask the court to sanction the veterans affairs for this.

I can't let this go because I didn't fight all the way to court.

To fight the same effective dates over again. 

Lol I am venting again.

 

[broncovet]

You posted:

Quote

Ok now the board change the cavc order and granted the same effective dates set a side by the court.

No.  A remand can result in at least 2 different results:

1.  Additional benefits CAN (but not must) be granted. OR

2.  No additional benefits are granted as a result of the remand.  

     This includes effective dates.  A remand to the Board, from the CAVC, even involving effective dates, does not mean more retro.  It means it goes back to the board "to determine if" an earlier effective date is warranted.  

      The board is required to grant an earlier effective date, OR deny same AND give a reasons and bases for their determination.  A remand is not the same as an award or grant.  A remand gives the board discretion on what to do.  

       The board must "address" the remand, but that does not mean grant an eed.  The board decides, and is given that authority by the court.  

      If you dispute the board's remand implementation, you can appeal it to the CAVC if desired.  

 

       Lawyers often appeal to the CAVC if the board did not give an adequate "reasons and bases" for decision.  

       Its pretty much automatic remand from cavc if the board does NOT give a reasons and bases for what they decided.  

      Welcome to the hamster wheel of remands, I finally got off the hamster wheel about 2 years ago.  

      How did I get off the hamster wheel?  Simple.  I got a Voc rehab assessment (IMO) that was favorable.  My  attorney advised same, I complied and won.  

      You see, while this wont likely be mentioned, the courts are bound to res judicata:

     

Generally, res judicata is the principle that a cause of action may not be relitigated once it has been judged on the merits. "Finality" is the term which refers to when a court renders a final judgment on the merits.

Res judicata is also frequently referred to as "claim preclusion," and the two are used interchangeably throughout this article. 

Breaking Down the Concept

Claim preclusion can be best understood by breaking it down into two sub-categories:

1. Bar - a losing plaintiff cannot re-sue a winning defendant on the same cause of action
   1. example: Plaintiff P sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C, but P loses. P may not try for better luck by initiating a new lawsuit against D on C.
2. Merger - a winning plaintiff cannot re-sue a losing defendant on the same cause of action
   1. example: Plaintiff P successfully sues Defendant D on Cause of Action C. P may not again sue D on C to try to recover more damages.    

      What "res judicata means" to you, is that you can essentially tell the judge "they did not know about THIS evidence when they judged it the last time".  Then submit a favorable IMO.  

     Otherwise, a claimant could simply keep applying until finally a very Veteran friendly judge got it and awarded.  This clogs up the courts.  Thus, the reason for res judicata.  

Edited October 26, 2021 by broncovet

[Mr cue]

I was not talking about the remand.

I am talking about the set a side order on the effective dates.

the portions of the January 30, 2020, 

Board decision denying an effective date before May 9, 2018, for the grant of SMC and entitlement 

to SMC in excess of the housebound rate, from May 9 to July 17, 2018, and at the aid-and-

attendance rate from that point are SET ASIDE and the matters are REMANDED.

I stated the board remand it to be granted in the first instance.

The same effective dates the court set a side.

This is volating a court order.

 

 

[broncovet]

You posted:

Quote

Ok here is the cavc remand.

......

Then you seem suprised that I spoke of the CAVC remand.   

 

You also posted:

 

Quote

I am talking about the set a side order on the effective dates.

the portions of the January 30, 2020, 

Board decision denying an effective date before May 9, 2018, for the grant of SMC and entitlement 

to SMC in excess of the housebound rate, from May 9 to July 17, 2018, and at the aid-and-

attendance rate from that point are SET ASIDE and the matters are REMANDED.

It sounds like you are interpreting "set aside" to mean "granted".  

No.  The judge would use the term "granted" if granted.  But they used "set aside and remanded" instead.  

"Set aside and remanded" means, well, what it says it means.  It does not mean effective dates are granted.  It means, instead, that your (applicable) claims are remanded.  The "set aside" portion has to do with finality.  A claim becomes "final" if the Veteran does not appeal within the applicable time period, and the "set aside" means that the claim continues (set aside) and does NOT become final UNTIL the Board re adjuticates the claim per the remand order.  

[Mr cue]

Here is my point again

The court set a side the effective dates granted by the bva.

Which means address a different time period. Not the same period

The board remand it to the ro to granted the same effective dates which the court set a side.

Which means the board volate the court order.

By granting the same effective dates I appeal to the court.

If the court set something a side.

It means not to address that period on remand get it

[Mr cue]

I be point this stuff out for other veterans to understand

We are talking about a set a side order from the us court of veterans appeal.