Jump to content

Ask Your VA Claims Questions | Read Current Posts 
Read VA Disability Claims Articles
Search | View All Forums | Donate | Blogs | New Users | Rules 

  • tbirds-va-claims-struggle (1).png

  • Donate Now and Keep Us Helping You

     

  • 0

What has the Supreme Court said about (CUE) Clear and Unmistakable Error

Rate this question


Tbird

Question

  • Founder

The case in question is:

George v. McDonough Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in George v. McDonough, a case concerning veterans denied disability benefits and the appeals process. Under federal law, veterans are entitled to benefits under federal law for injuries or disabilities resulting from their service, including pre-existing conditions aggravated during service. In 1975, Kevin George was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia just months after enlisting as a Marine. He received a medical discharge and filed for disability benefits through the VA. He was denied after a medical panel ruled his condition existed prior to joining the military. Mr. George appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals in 1977 but was unsuccessful. In 1988, Congress acted to allow VA decisions to be appealed in federal court. In 2014, Mr. George appealed again. He argued his case should be reopened because the board denied his claims based on an invalidated statute. Lower federal courts ruled against him, and he appealed.

This link will take you to the C-Span page of the hearing. This page includes the audio hearing as well as the text for those with hearing issues.

You can read the Amicus Brief here.

[Amicus Curiae - Latin for "friend of the court." Plural is "amici curiae." Frequently, a person or group who is not a party to an action, but has a strong interest in the matter, will petition the court for permission to submit a brief in the action with the intent of influencing the court's decision. Such briefs are called "amicus briefs."]

Tbird
 

Founder HadIt.com Veteran To Veteran LLC - Founded Jan 20, 1997

 

HadIt.com Veteran To Veteran | Community Forum | RallyPointFaceBook | LinkedInAbout Me

 

Time Dedicated to HadIt.com Veterans and my brothers and sisters: 65,700 - 109,500 Hours Over Thirty Years

 

diary-a-mad-sailor-signature-banner.png

I am writing my memoirs and would love it if you could help a shipmate out and look at it.

I've had a few challenges, perhaps the same as you. I relate them here to demonstrate that we can learn, overcome, and find purpose in life.

The stories can be harrowing to read; they were challenging to live. Remember that each story taught me something I would need once I found my purpose, and my purpose was and is HadIt.com Veterans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

Read thru the whole thing.  No clue on how they will decide.  Hope the go for George because it will make CUE better defined when it comes to regulations and statutes.  And both ultimately must fall under Constitutional authority as the "higher authority."  I think then "Fifth Amendment, denial of due process" will become a CUE.  

Still waiting for my BVA hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Content Curator/HadIt.com Elder

@LemuelI agree. I hope George wins and they allow changes in interpretation which benefit veterans to impact prior denials.

The whole CUE process assumes the vet squandered their appeal window. Many vets, like me, simply did not understand the system at the time and trusted VSOs and the VA to handle things by the book. We all know how that goes. And then when they apply CUE, it's totally adversarial as the Caluza element for the nexus is completely tossed out the window. Can't reinterpret it at all.

"If it's stupid but works, then it isn't stupid."
- From Murphy's Laws of Combat

Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert, so use at own risk and/or consult a qualified professional representative. Please refer to existing VA laws, regulations, and policies for the most up to date information.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I didn't think he would win, it would have ment that thousands of veterans would have filed cue claims ,  I felt the courts would have dened it on this alone, and not to my liking they did.

                                                                                I am not a lawyer so take my opinions with a grain of salt...

If I had listened to the nay sayers, I would never have acheived any ratings after I was awarded TDIU in 1999. Now I have not one but two 100% ratings, a TDIU  and 4 SMC awards !  I say JUST GO For It

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” -Albert Einstein.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Founder

Tbird
 

Founder HadIt.com Veteran To Veteran LLC - Founded Jan 20, 1997

 

HadIt.com Veteran To Veteran | Community Forum | RallyPointFaceBook | LinkedInAbout Me

 

Time Dedicated to HadIt.com Veterans and my brothers and sisters: 65,700 - 109,500 Hours Over Thirty Years

 

diary-a-mad-sailor-signature-banner.png

I am writing my memoirs and would love it if you could help a shipmate out and look at it.

I've had a few challenges, perhaps the same as you. I relate them here to demonstrate that we can learn, overcome, and find purpose in life.

The stories can be harrowing to read; they were challenging to live. Remember that each story taught me something I would need once I found my purpose, and my purpose was and is HadIt.com Veterans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • HadIt.com Elder

I was hoping he had a better case.  

He was up against an EPTE that was not disclosed that prejudiced his case for hardliners.  Fraudulent enlistment though that was not used against him in the decision.

The question I have is how it was missed in the MMPI examination that all recruits received at that time in Boot Camp.  Seems as though he was in more than 90 days and had a board that concluded the service aggravated his condition.  That should have been the decision in his favor granting him a divided SC and limited compensation making it super complicated.

I downloaded the decision Berta posted to study.  My conditions have no EPTE so the fact that the CUE got to SCOTUS may have relevance for me in the references from the Appellant.

My case is similar in that I consider "limiting examination orders" from the RO or DRO are a CUE in the face of 38 CFR 4.42 and Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) including for seizures in a TBI examination (EEG) and for tinnitus when a hearing loss or hearing difficulties are claimed and there is a TBI. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
  • Content Curator/HadIt.com Elder

@LemuelWhen I joined in the early 90s, they made us take the ASVAB test, not a full spectrum MMPI exam. However, I was hoping he might win CUE under the aggravation vs. pre-existing condition laws/regs.  Granted he joined and was discharged in the 70s, the rules then might have differed greatly from when I joined in 1990.

Denials due to pre-existing vs. aggravation are pretty crazy, but are not always legitimate. If the entrance exam was silent for something they grant the presumption of soundness for it. Mental illness issues are often silent. Other factors like needing eyeglasses or having a healed fracture or injury scars are much more obvious. However, if an issue is noted at entrance, the military can still admit them into the service. If it is determined that service aggravated a pre-existing disability, they can still grant SC and even percentages. However, when rating the pre-existing/aggravated disability, they are required to determine the pre-service level of disability in terms of the rating schedule and deduct that from the current level of disability. I am not sure if that same law/reg was in effect back in the 70s though...

When you think about it, basic training back in the 70s was a much rougher experience than when I joined in 1990, which was still rougher than joining today (I hear recruits are given stress cards and have access to cell phones). I can see how someone might develop mental issues or suffer some sort of relapse from merely going through basic training. I honestly expected him to win based in part on the aggravation approach, not due to changes in the law/reg. Makes me wonder if he might try to send in a new CUE based on the aggravation, but I guess that depends on what is in his original C&P, discharge docs, etc... Just feel bad for him though.

 

"If it's stupid but works, then it isn't stupid."
- From Murphy's Laws of Combat

Disclaimer: I am not a legal expert, so use at own risk and/or consult a qualified professional representative. Please refer to existing VA laws, regulations, and policies for the most up to date information.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Tell a friend

    Love HadIt.com’s VA Disability Community Vets helping Vets since 1997? Tell a friend!
  • Recent Achievements

    • LEArmy93P earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • LtDave earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • HillTopVet earned a badge
      First Post
    • kidva went up a rank
      Contributor
    • AFguy1999 went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Our picks

    • These decisions have made a big impact on how VA disability claims are handled, giving veterans more chances to get benefits and clearing up important issues.

      Service Connection

      Frost v. Shulkin (2017)
      This case established that for secondary service connection claims, the primary service-connected disability does not need to be service-connected or diagnosed at the time the secondary condition is incurred 1. This allows veterans to potentially receive secondary service connection for conditions that developed before their primary condition was officially service-connected. 

      Saunders v. Wilkie (2018)
      The Federal Circuit ruled that pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosed condition, can constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes if it results in functional impairment 1. This overturned previous precedent that required an underlying pathology for pain to be considered a disability.

      Effective Dates

      Martinez v. McDonough (2023)
      This case dealt with the denial of an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) 2. It addressed issues around the validity of appeal withdrawals and the consideration of cognitive impairment in such decisions.

      Rating Issues

      Continue Reading on HadIt.com
      • 1 review
    • I met with a VSO today at my VA Hospital who was very knowledgeable and very helpful.  We decided I should submit a few new claims which we did.  He told me that he didn't need copies of my military records that showed my sick call notations related to any of the claims.  He said that the VA now has entire military medical record on file and would find the record(s) in their own file.  It seemed odd to me as my service dates back to  1981 and spans 34 years through my retirement in 2015.  It sure seemed to make more sense for me to give him copies of my military medical record pages that document the injuries as I'd already had them with me.  He didn't want my copies.  Anyone have any information on this.  Much thanks in advance.  
      • 4 replies
    • Caluza Triangle defines what is necessary for service connection
      Caluza Triangle – Caluza vs Brown defined what is necessary for service connection. See COVA– CALUZA V. BROWN–TOTAL RECALL

      This has to be MEDICALLY Documented in your records:

      Current Diagnosis.   (No diagnosis, no Service Connection.)

      In-Service Event or Aggravation.
      Nexus (link- cause and effect- connection) or Doctor’s Statement close to: “The Veteran’s (current diagnosis) is at least as likely due to x Event in military service”
      • 0 reviews
    • Do the sct codes help or hurt my disability rating 
    • VA has gotten away with (mis) interpreting their  ambigious, , vague regulations, then enforcing them willy nilly never in Veterans favor.  

      They justify all this to congress by calling themselves a "pro claimant Veteran friendly organization" who grants the benefit of the doubt to Veterans.  

      This is not true, 

      Proof:  

          About 80-90 percent of Veterans are initially denied by VA, pushing us into a massive backlog of appeals, or worse, sending impoverished Veterans "to the homeless streets" because  when they cant work, they can not keep their home.  I was one of those Veterans who they denied for a bogus reason:  "Its been too long since military service".  This is bogus because its not one of the criteria for service connection, but simply made up by VA.  And, I was a homeless Vet, albeit a short time,  mostly due to the kindness of strangers and friends. 

          Hadit would not be necessary if, indeed, VA gave Veterans the benefit of the doubt, and processed our claims efficiently and paid us promptly.  The VA is broken. 

          A huge percentage (nearly 100 percent) of Veterans who do get 100 percent, do so only after lengthy appeals.  I have answered questions for thousands of Veterans, and can only name ONE person who got their benefits correct on the first Regional Office decision.  All of the rest of us pretty much had lengthy frustrating appeals, mostly having to appeal multiple multiple times like I did. 

          I wish I know how VA gets away with lying to congress about how "VA is a claimant friendly system, where the Veteran is given the benefit of the doubt".   Then how come so many Veterans are homeless, and how come 22 Veterans take their life each day?  Va likes to blame the Veterans, not their system.   
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Guidelines and Terms of Use