Click To Ask Your VA Claims Question
Read Disability Claims Articles
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
- 0
Been looking at my petition
Rate this question
Click To Ask Your VA Claims Question
Read Disability Claims Articles
View All Forums | Chats and Other Events | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Search | Rules
Rate this question
Question
Mr cue
Ok here it is I did a petition asking the court to sanction the veterans affairs.
For mishandling of a cavc remand order.
I have been waiting over two months for a decision to come out the judge chambers.
This very different to me.
So I had to go back to the last thing the judge put in on the case and see if I miss something.
Well after reading it over I feel the judge is about to come down on the veterans affairs.
There are laws on how a cavc remand is to be handle.
There is a case Grove vs veterans affairs.
We're the court address how cavc remand should be handle and track in the system.
The court was going to sanction the veterans affairs in that case but
The court choose to send memo to every droc. Telling them how to handle cavc remand and to process them in vacol.
Well the veterans affairs has volate the memo and law in my case.
From my reading the judge told the va something is wrong in so many words.
I think give them a chance to get it right.
Well the veterans affairs told the court it was ok the way they process the cavc remand.
I will post the response they use to Address the Court.
I can't see It any other way but that the court is about to make a big decision.
It doesn't take almost 3 month for no cavc decision once it in a judge chambers.
If they were going to denied the petition.
Tell me what you guys think
On July 6, 2021, self-represented veteran filed a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus. Mr asserts that a writ of mandamus is necessary to compel VA to take action on his claims remanded by the Court in January 2021. Petition at 1; see v. McDonough, No. 20-4110, 2021 WL 485865 (Jan. 29, 2021). Among other things, Mr. asserts that VA has improperly bifurcated the remanded claims by assigning a new docket number to his appeal of the evaluation assigned for his psychiatric disorder and that, as a result, the matter is not being treated expeditiously. Petition at 5-6. In a September 13, 2021, supplemental response, the Secretary explained that the claims were initially bifurcated because, due to administrative error, the psychiatric disorder claim was listed in the tracking system as in a different stage of the adjudication process and, therefore, could not be part of the appeal certified to the Board in a May 2021 VA Form 8. Supplemental Response at 5. As for whether the two appeal streams can be merged now that the error has been corrected, the Secretary included a declaration from the Board's Deputy Vice Chairman explaining that "[l]egacy appeal records can only be merged by the Board if they are actively assigned to the Board . . . at the same time." Id., Appendix A at 3. The Secretary's explanations address the question of why Mr. psychiatric disorder claim was—and remains—bifurcated from the others remanded by the Court in January 2021. However, it is unresponsive to Mr assertion that, by assigning a 2021 docket number, his appeal of that issue is not being treated expeditiously as it should be under 38 U.S.C. § 7112. Compare id., Appendix B, Exhibit M (showing that Mr psychiatric disorder appeal is categorized as "Original" and assigned docket number 2100585), with id., Exhibit AA (showing that increased SMC appeal is categorized as a "Court Remand" and assigned docket number 1909416). The Secretary asserts that the psychiatric disorder claim "will be considered
according to its place on the docket," id. at 14, but has not explained what that place is or whether it reflects expeditious treatment based on the Court's January 2021 remand. Furthermore, Mr. asserts that all of these matters, both the psychiatric claims and the SMC issues, were advanced on the docket when they were first before the Board, but that postremand they are no longer in that status. See Petition at 1. The Secretary asserts that Mr.has been notified how he can request that his appeals again be advanced on the docket, Supplemental Response at 5, but has not explained why, if VA had previously determined that advancement was warranted, the appeals did not remain in that status following the Court's remand. Consequently, the Court requires additional information from the Secretary. See U.S. VET. APP. R. 21(d). Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that the Secretary, within 10 days after the date of this order, file a supplemental response to the petition, addressing the specific allegations that Mr psychiatric disorder appeal is not being handled expeditiously and that none of his appeals have been advanced on the Board's docket. The Secretary should provide any documentation pertinent to the Court's resolution of this matter. DATED: November 4, 2021
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
Popular Days
Feb 4
2
Top Posters For This Question
Mr cue 2 posts
Popular Days
Feb 4 2022
2 posts
1 answer 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