Here are the results of the CAVC’s court calendar this year. While the year is 20 days away from completion, the Court has never shown any inclination to finish with a flurry of late opinions. I see no reason to expect them to do otherwise this year.
The Court heard 30 cases this year-one twice. This is the only year in the 22 year history of the Court where the Secretary was found in contempt and fined (Harvey). Buie is probably the only cutting edge decision as it upset some of the tenets of Bradley on TDIU. Otherwise, it was a ho-hum year.
The score looks something like this. Reversals in the Vet’s favor-7; Remand (in favor of the Vet)-16 and affirmation of the BVA’s decison-5. One can be seen as a tie (Peet) that requested a Joint Motion for Remand to readjudicate the case.
It can be said that the Court has matured and now is confident in its jurisdiction. As most will recall, the first decade of its existence was mired in arguments over whether they even had the right to inveigh on much of what they were presented. That rarely raises its ugly head anymore and the Secretary uses it less and less. He, too, is coming to accept that much of his jurisprudence is flawed and requires “fine-tuning”. Veterans continue to get high quality justice and a claimant-friendly venue when they appeal.
The addition of more justices to bring up the total to nine will do much to speed up our predicament. It is hoped that they will be approved by the Senate sooner rather than later. We have waited for our Commander in Chief to fill these positions for years and the delay is uncalled for. If he truly believes Veterans deserve better, he will sign the paperwork and get them ensconced up at Indiana Ave. promptly.
Happy bath tissue makes for happy raters. You see the problem?
asknod
Bethanie Spangenberg
kcraveiro
robinhoodesqvetsatty
Wesley McCauley
Veterans Claims Help 
That’s a concise analysis of the data. I notice you didn’t skew it artificially by introducing extraneous data to water down the results. Statistics are frequently massaged by their authors to make their case. With the VA, this is often to mask imbecilic behaviour and poor operational procedures. The Court has no need to obfuscate as we can see. 61% error would be considered by most to be criminal. I’m sure VA thinks it’s within “statistical models” on this. The unvarnished truth is it pays to appeal your case (or will when you get finished).
Based upon this CAVC annual report, I drew the following conclusions:
1. If you add the “affirmed” (741 cases) and “dismissed” (1156) cases and divide them by the total, (4959), then this means Vets were UNsuccessful in their CAVC appeal 38.2% of the time. Since this number includes “voluntary” dismissals, this would suggest that it would include the Veteran’s withdrawal of his appeal for whatever reason, possibly to include death before the claim was decided.
2. This would mean the Veteran is at least partially successful at the CAVC better than 61% of the time, as long as the Vet can survive the appellate review period. In other words, at least 60% of the time the Veteran appeals at the CAVC level, the VA erred and “missed” a Vets potential benefit award, at least in part.
Click to access FY_2010_Annual_report_June_27_2011_.pdf