Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR)

[Arthur White]

Hello Vets,

Glad to have found this channel. I would so greatly appreciate any insight on Remands and what they are stating to

have me as the Vet schedule for a new C&P exam, for my back issues. Not sure how to get more traction on this

and i have a Docket number from the BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS. Can someone please assist and help me move

the needle fwd? Any and all consideration in the matter is again greatly appreciate and thank you for your time.

 

V/r,

Arthur

 

[Guest]

Sounds like they are wanting more evidence in your case. 

Remands can be good or bad.  All 3 of mine have ended well.

Go through the steps and get accross the line.  Also remember you can appeal again if you disagree.

I have been to the CAVC twice and won both times.  Keep fighting!

[Dustoff1970]

As a recent example of BVA remand results here is my personal real experience.

In January 2022 BVA remanded my AO Nam Ischemic heart disease increase appeal to VARO for a new and more material VAX C&P exam to gain a more accurate picture of my current IHD/CAD heart disease.  VARO then sent me 150 miles one way to a LHI EKG exam and after arrival I was told the technician was out sick and they would contact me for reschedule and they never did and then falsely stated I failed to appear for the EKG. 

VARO then again denied my claim and I again appealed to BVA and telling them about the false claim that I failed to appear.  I also provided BVA with new evidence in the form of independent private doctor IMO nexus medical opinion justifying my increase from 30 to 60%.   The BVA then ignored the LHI false statement and granted me my increase to 60%. 

Here is the actual BVA remand instructions to the VARO for my appeal.

Citation Nr: A22000106
Decision Date: 01/05/22    Archive Date: 01/05/22

DOCKET NO. 190415-204229
DATE: January 5, 2022

REMANDED

Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for the Veteran's service-connected coronary artery disease (CAD) is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served honorably in the Army from September 1968 to April 1971.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 RAMP rating decision. The Veteran elected direct review. See April 2019 Correspondence.

By way of history, the Veteran was granted service connection for CAD with a 30 percent rating effective June 5, 2017 in an August 2017 rating decision. The Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) in May 2018. In October 2018, the Veteran submitted a RAMP Opt-In Election Form. In November 2018 a RAMP rating decision was issued.

Under the AMA, the Board may only remand an issue to correct a pre-decisional duty to assist error. Upon review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that there was a pre-decisional duty to assist error and a remand is required.

Significantly, in the November 2018 rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to a higher rating for the Veteran's service-connected CAD. The VA last provided the Veteran a VA examination (VAX) for this condition in August 2017. Since then, the Veteran has asserted an increase in severity of his disability. See May 2018 NOD. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997) (noting that a claimant is entitled to a new VAX where there is evidence that the condition has worsened since that last VAX).

VA's duty to assist includes the conduct of a thorough and comprehensive VAX. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121, 214 (1991.  Accordingly, a more contemporaneous VAX is required to provide a current picture of the Veteran's service-connected CAD. See 38 C.F.R.    3.326, 3.327.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Schedule the Veteran for a VAX to determine the current level of severity of his service-connected CAD. A copy of this REMAND and his entire claims file must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner.

The examiner should report all signs and symptoms necessary for determining the current level of severity of his service-connected CAD.

 

 

James Springer

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board    S. Smith, Associate Counsel

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R.   20.1303.

My comment is not legal advice as I am not a lawyer, paralegal or VSO