This is one of those interesting reads that we love to post for you. In spite of the fact that it is a single judge ruling and has no precedence, it still is refreshing to see the judge lambaste the VLJ and the RO for their inherent stupidity regarding their adjudication skills.

Another thing the reader will find refreshing is the final realization by someone in authority that there were no tests available in 1972 to ascertain if one had Hep C. A CAVC judge has to explain this to a “ratings expert” trained in this art form. Additionally the judge has to finally ask the burning question we’ve all been waiting years to have answered. To wit, if a Vet smokes some left handed tobacco, or, perhaps has a “history” of a love affair with Jack Danials, that he somehow is more “at risk” of contracting HCV. The judge goes so far as to get in the examiner’s face and ask: “Where does it say that a Vet with a “racy lifestyle” that includes a few indiscretions without a raincoat on, is automatically at risk for HCV and therefore it is not service-connected?”.  This line of reasoning is circular. Remember, VA can say on Monday that sexual promiscuity has a very low risk percentage of transmitting HCV when you claim that as a risk factor, but on Tuesday the Vet probably contracted it from a wild, unprotected sexual lifestyle as evidenced by his venereal warts. And naturally, this all occurred after his time in service. How? Why it’s elementary VA logic, my dear reader. There was no report of venereal warts in his service medical records ergo he must have incurred them after service.

The Vet does have his work cut out for him. He is going to have to get off his duff and go farther afield to gather better internet articles in defense of his claim. The judge states as much, too. A decision on this will be interesting. I’m almost positive the VA Secretary will send this out for an IMO from the very best deniers at QTC. It will require the semantic policing by an expert English scholar as well as to get all the “not”s in the right places. When it is returned to the Court, the Vet very well may lose. If he does, I pray he asks for reconsideration by a panel and it breaks new legal ground.  Mr. Wayne R. Barton may become our new poster child if he pulls this one off. We certainly wish him all the luck in the world. He’s going to need it.

http://search.uscourts.cavc.gov/isysquery/372478c4-9864-41d5-b3a8-03021ef6e2a6/1/doc/

Ruh-oh, Rorge. Trouble in paradise. Pretty nice piece of work though, huh? Now, why can’t we get this cutting edge analysis at the BVA or RO level? Why does it always have to get to the Supreme frigging Court before someone acknowledges that the Emperor is naked and has been had by the tailor? Hello? McFly??