CAVC–BROWN v. SHINSEKI–BACK TO THE FUTURE


download

Always on the prowl for useful ammunition, I came across this 2009 delight. It was won by Virginia Girard-Brady, an able Veterans Lawyer. Now, before you make fun of her propensity to hyphenate her last name, it could be she wants to retain a memoir of her former single life. She has a storied history of winning her claims and it could be that she did this before her name change at marriage and wanted continuity in her professional business profile. Whatever the reason, the effects on the VA are usually devastating as here.

You’ll love the camaraderie that develops between Judge Mary Schoelen, the daughter of a Navy Vet, and Miz Virginia every time they get together for these tête-à-têtes. I got a big bang out of this and Vets should bookmark it for appeals up to the Big House when they get the bum rap.

The Court finds that the Board did not provide adequate reasons or bases for its decision to deny the appellant’s claim. The Board stated that the appellant’s SMRs are “devoid of complaints or diagnoses of hepatitis C” and that there is “no evidence of hepatitis C in service[.]”   However, hepatitis C was not recognized as a disease until nearly two decades after the appellant’s service. See 65 Fed. Reg. 48207 (Aug. 7, 2007) (stating that VA was proposing to add a diagnostic
code for hepatitis C, “a type of viral infection that was not identified until 1989”). Therefore, the absence of a diagnosis of the disorder in the SMRs is not a reasonable basis for concluding that the appellant’s hepatitis C was not incurred in service. Cf. Daye v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 512, 517 (2006) (recognizing that the Board’s reliance on lack of combat award that had not been established at the time of veteran’s service was error; “‘Back to the Future’ may be a concept suitable for movies and theme parks but it cannot serve as a basis for denying the claims of veterans.'”).

Don’t you just love Shoelen’s humor? I bet she plays pure hell with her legal staff on April Fool’s Day down at Indiana Ave. NW.

Here’s the  Brown-268 decision

 

Daye v. Nicholson (2006) is here

Daye Panel

 

About asknod

VA claims blogger
This entry was posted in CAvC HCV Ruling, HCV Risks (documented), Tips and Tricks and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to CAVC–BROWN v. SHINSEKI–BACK TO THE FUTURE

  1. karen stern says:

    LOVE IT!

  2. Rain Storm says:

    The Asknod body of work has all the information needed for an FDC “fully developed claim”.

    It’s uplifting to read cases like this where common sense and decency prevail, and
    the vA is exposed as willfully deceitful; which would be criminal conduct in a real legal setting.

  3. Malcolm in the middle says:

    I hope Robert uses this for precedence on my case

  4. Kiedove says:

    I’m just noticing that we have a PRINT button. YAY!

  5. Robert P. Walsh says:

    Hey,

    Read Daye. Judge Farley, with whom I did not always win or agree, turns the VA in to sushi.

    Check it out.

    Bob

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s