Jump to content
Using an Ad Blocker? Consider adding HadIt.com as an exception. Hadit.com is funded through advertising, ad free memberships, contributions and out of pocket. ×
  • 0

Been looking at my petition


Mr cue

Question

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

  • Answers 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

1 answer to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I just got off the phone with the supervisor of clerks at the court.

He told me he will send a email to the judge chambers.

To see what is going on.

 

 

 

Here is the veterans affairs respond

It a little read be I think this will help a few understand the court and how to fight at the court.

Subsequent  to the Secretary’s  August  26,  2021,  and September  13,  2021, responses,  on  November  4,  2021,  the  Court  issued  an  order  directing  the Secretary  to  address  the specific allegations that  Petitioner’s  psychiatric  disorder appeal  was  not  being  handled expeditiously and  that  none  of  his appeals  were advanced on  the  Board's  docket. In response,  on  November  17,  2021,  the  undersigned  obtained  a declaration  from  the  Deputy  Vice  Chairman  (DVC)  of  the  Board  of  Veterans’ Appeals (Board),  Mr.  Christopher  A.  Santoro  (Mr.  Santoro).    (App.  A).   Amongst other  things,  he  averred  that,  inter alia,  on October  13,  2021,  VA  received  a statement  from  Petitioner  requesting his appeals  be advanced on the Board’s docket.    Id.  (citing  to  App.  B,  Exhibit D).   He further  stated that  on  October  28, 2021,  the  Board  notified Petitioner  his appeals  were awaiting review  by a Veterans  Law  Judge (VLJ),  and that  his request  for  advancement  on  the docket had been forwarded  to a DVC  for  review.  (App. A) (citing  to  App.  B,  Exhibit E).   Further,  on  November  8,  2021,  the  Board  notified  Petitioner  that  his  request  for advancement  on the  docket  was  granted.   (App.  A) (citing  to  App.  B,  Exhibit  F).   He  stated that  Petitioner’s  legacy  appeal  for  an  increased  initial  rating  for  a psychiatric  disorder  has  been advanced  on  the docket  and  was  assigned to  a VLJ on  November  8,  2021,  for  review  and  adjudication.    (App.  A)  (citing to App. 

Exhibit G). He reported that the Board was treating the issue expeditiously as having been remanded by the Court. Id. Similarly, Petitioner’s appeal as to the effective dates assigned for special monthly compensation (SMC) based on aid and attendance and SMC based on housebound criteria, had been advanced on the docket, did not indicate a pending request for a Board hearing, and was assigned to a VLJ on November 8, 2021, for review and adjudication. (App. A) (citing to App. B, Exhibit H). More importantly, the undersigned’s review of Petitioner’s record in the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) reflects that the Board has now adjudicated both these appeals. (App. C). And a claim for SMC at the O and R levels was denied through a November 16, 2021, supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). (App. D). RESPONSE As an initial matter, the Board has now adjudicated the appeals that are subject to the instant action, including the effective dates for SMC and increased rating for the psychiatric claim. (App. C). Moreover, as noted in the Secretary’s September 13, 2021, response, the issue of increased rating for SMC was remanded to the RO for development. As such, Petitioner’s requested actions have been satisfied. The Court should therefore dismiss, or deny, the Petition. Thomas v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 269, 270 (1996) (per curium order); see also Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 12, 15 (1990) (dismissing portion of petition seeking mandamus relief because controversy surrounding petition was moot)

However, in the interest of completeness and to address the Court’s specific concerns as articulated in the November 4, 2021, order, the Secretary notes that while Petitioner has alleged that his claims were advanced on the docket when they were first before the Board, but were no longer in that status post-remand, see Petition at 1, Mr. Santoro’s declaration explains otherwise. , Specifically, Mr. Santoro explained that Petitioner’s appeals as to an increased initial rating for a psychiatric disorder and earlier effective dates for SMC were both advanced on the docket and assigned to a VLJ for review and adjudication accordingly. (App. A) (citing to App. B, Exhibit G, H). Additionally, the Board treated Petitioner’s appeal for an increased initial rating for a psychiatric disorder expeditiously as having been remanded by the Court. (App. A) (citing to App. B, Exhibit G). As an noted above, at the time of this filing, adjudication was complete. (App. C). Entitlement to Relief The attached declaration and decisions, in conjunction with the Secretary’s earlier responses, demonstrate that VA has not only been actively involved in the adjudication of Petitioner’s claims which the Court remanded in January 2021, but now has taken the actions required, and adjudicated them to completion with the issuance of the latest Board decisions. (App. C). Notably, the initial petition focused on the status of claims from a January 2021 Court decision including: a rating, higher than 70%, for a psychiatric disorder, effective dates for entitlement to SMC at the housebound and aid-and-attendance rates, and entitlement to SMC at the O and R levels. The rating and effective date issues have been adjudicated to completion. And a claim for SMC at the O and R levels was denied through a November 16, 2021, SSOC. See (App. D). As such, the requested relief has been satisfied. “[T]here is no hard and fast rule with respect to when delay becomes unreasonable,” Martin, 891 F.3d at 1346, but based on the facts in this case, there has been no unreasonable delay on the part of the Secretary. Rather, the delay Petitioner experienced (if any) was a product of a statutory system that balances the rights of veterans to have their claims adequately developed and fairly appealed with the right of a speedy resolution. Thus, this Court should decline to find clear and indisputable entitlement to relief in the form of a writ of mandamus. Lastly, the Court should deny the relief requested by Petitioner’s writ because the All Writs Act is not a substitute for an administrative appeal, see Harris v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 345, 348 (2005) (holding that a petitioner “must exhaust his administrative remedies before extraordinary relief can be granted”), and any action by the Court on the underlying merits of Petitioner’s claims would be premature. Particularly now, where the Board issued decisions on Petitioner’s claims. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth in the Secretary’s August 26, 2021, and September 13, 2021, responses, the Secretary restates 

 

If the court doesn't address my petition I will be take it to federal court.

Because this makes no sense.

That don't even address were the smc o and r is.

That don't explain why my appeals were not merge back with the cavc remand docket. By law.

They don't address the removal of my effective dates from the legacy appeal system and the court remand docket.

Or them process them as a new 2021 appeal not a cavc remand.

The court set a side the effective dates for smc s and l.

The board change the cavc remand order an Remand the effective dates to granted the first instance by the ro.

The ro than made me do a new nod and remove my effective dates from the Cavc remand docket.

And legacy appeal.

All done to not address the Howell v Nicholson percendent in my case.

These are the games va play when they owe big retro hoping that I didn't caught it. Smh.

I really hope the court address sanction the veterans affairs because of there handling of a cavc remand order.

This is just to much

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • veteranscrisisline-badge-chat-1.gif

  • Advertisemnt

  • How to get your questions answered...

    question-001.jpeg

    All VA Claims questions should be posted on our forums. Read the forums without registering, to post you must register it’s free. Register for a free account.

    Tips on posting on the forums.

    1. Post a clear title like ‘Need help preparing PTSD claim’ or “VA med center won’t schedule my surgery” instead of ‘I have a question’.
    2. Knowledgable people who don’t have time to read all posts may skip yours if your need isn’t clear in the title. I don’t read all posts every login and will gravitate towards those I have more info on.
    3. Use paragraphs instead of one huge, rambling introduction or story. Again – You want to make it easy for others to help. If your question is buried in a monster paragraph there are fewer who will investigate to dig it out.

    Leading to:

    Post clear questions and then give background info on them.

    Examples:

    • A. I was previously denied for apnea – Should I refile a claim?
      • was diagnosed with apnea in service and received a CPAP machine but claim was denied in 2008. Should I refile?
    • B. I may have PTSD- how can I be sure?
      • I was involved in traumatic incident on base in 1974 and have had nightmares ever since, but I did not go to mental health while enlisted. How can I get help?

    This gives members a starting point to ask clarifying questions like “Can you post the Reasons for Denial from your claim?” etc.

    Note:

    Your firsts posts on the board may be delayed before they show up, as they are reviewed, this process does not take long and the review requirement will be removed usually by the 6th post, though we reserve the right to keep anyone on moderator preview.

    This process allows us to remove spam and other junk posts before they hit the board. We want to keep the focus on VA Claims and this helps us do that.

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • Advertisemnt

  • VA Watchdog

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines