vetcourtappealspromoAs I pointed out several days ago, Mr. Billy E. Wilson’s travails at the BVA were nothing more than standard VA protocol. Distracting your “mark” by dragging in extraneous arguments and then not even addressing them is par for the course with VA. Their old straw man technique dressed up in a new straw suit was not unique. Nor, indeed, was Judge Kasold’s denial which exhibits barely one half hour of legal research and heavily plagiarizes the Acting Veterans Law Judges’s (M. Tenner’s) poorly reasoned dissertation.

In a well-reasoned decision, up or down, a CAVC judge must not fall victim to taking the path of least resistance. We understand that Judge Kasold is growing tired of his appointment to the bench but this is no excuse to simply lip whip the job and keep the seat warm for several more months. If the man cannot bring himself to devote the time and an erudite, incisive legal brain to the job, he has no business there.


Bruce: “Guilty. No proof of sexual escapades in the ROA. Next?”

Looking over the July 9th affirmation, and fully well knowing the errors of the BVA decision, Judge Kasold exhibits the hubris of one who cannot be bothered to go afield and research this to ascertain the truth. In contrast, look at Judge Meg Bartley’s minute dissection of Beraud v. Shinseki where she stood as the only dissenting party to the panel affirmation. Her careful examination of each and every facet led Attorney Amy Odom to a victory up at the Dead Circus- no small feat.


Kasold baldly contends that Rizzo v. Shinseki 580 F.3d 1288, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that VA medical examiner is presumed competent in the absence of evidence to the contrary) is on point here despite glaring evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, Billy’s shield bearer Michael Wildhaber,  had an inadequate grasp of the complexities of Hepatitis A, B and C and the correlation to what was known-and what wasn’t- in 1973.

Focusing solely on the reopening in 2009, and the failure to introduce the Risk Factors Questionnaire (RFQ) into the record early on, Mr. Wilson could not be expected to pick from a menu of possible risks. Absent this probative inquiry, he was left to his own devices or those of his VSO as to the etiology of his disease. The RFQ clearly lists all of his purported risks with the notable exception of jetguns but we at asknod feel they fall into the category of percutaneous piercings akin to EMG needles, tattoos and acupuncture.

In 2009, the RFQ was the go-to document first mailed to a claimant filing for HCV. VA wanted to ascertain early on what the potential risks were in the Vet’s own words. This was five to eight years before the inception of the newer DBQs which do not provide any similar list. Absent this, or even the knowledge such a document existed, he was condemned to failure. VA is fond of asking us how we came to be injured or diseased and often utilizes this document to demolish our credibility. In Billy’s case, they never even developed the claim because they never sent out the preliminary documents to the correct address when he filed. I notice Kasold didn’t even talk about due process. Admittedly, neither did Wilson’s attorney.

unnamedThe due process violation of failing to inform the Vet of the need for substantiation, let alone the RFQ filing, left Wilson in the untenable spot of playing catch up when hit with the SOC. He then had sixty days to scramble to collate and send in a coherent rebuttal. Rotsaruck, Jose. His newly admitted risks were multiple sexual partners, an undocumented blood transfusion and potential needle sticks or exposure to blood as a medical worker. Since none of these risks were ever opined on in his original, poorly written nexus letter, VA demolished them in the ensuing SSOC. Inasmuch as Acting VLJ M. Tanner pointed out the absence of evidence of Mr. Wilson neglecting to report to his superiors any unsanitary contact with blood, the record is also equally silent with respect for Mr. Wilson’s sexual escapades.  If VA expected to see reports of needle sticks or blood exposure in his STRs, wouldn’t it seem perfectly natural to also see a  report to sick call that said “Yo. I was out on a cherchez les femmes expedition last night and got lucky. Would you be so kind as to inspect me for any risks associated with this?” More frequently in the past, we’ve seen BVA judges ruminate as to why, if a Vet shared razors/toothbrushes in the military, why that salient risk never appeared in his STRS either.

Bartley, Schoelen or Greenberg would be all over this like white on rice and asking why the discrepancy. Kasold blithely glosses over it but demands to see evidence of a needlestick in 1973. Sanitary protocols, as much as medical terminology, are the reason for this defective affirmation. Even more so, we have seen several memorandum decisions in the last few years that eviscerated the logic of hoping to find mention of hepatitis C, needlestick or other blood risk in a 1973 setting.

Mr. Wildhaber would be wise to take this up to the Federal Circuit on the simple Gilbert violation – that the decision cannot stand based on nothing more than the fact that everyone clearly ignored a coherent, concise, unequivocal diagnosis of viral hepatitis in service. It is part and parcel of the ROA. It is not a new theory like a post hoc rationalization introduced for the first time on appeal. Mr. Wildhaber carefully covered Wilson’s derriere in his fifth contention on page 3 where he summarized that the VA examiner failed to make the sale on it being Hepatitis A. Kasold magnificently shot himself in the foot with his cite to Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25 Vet.App. 293-294(2012)

(noting medical reports are to be “read as a whole”), the 2010 examination report reflects that the examiner reviewed the claims file, which included documentation of Mr. Wilson’s in-service hepatitis symptoms and treatment for his hepatitis. Mr. Wilson fails to demonstrate that his in-service symptoms and treatment were not more likely reflective of having and being treated for hepatitis A as opposed to hepatitis C, or that the examiner rendered his opinion based upon incorrect or incomplete facts or was not otherwise competent to render his opinion.

It is not incumbent on Mr. Wilson to have to point out the  diagnosis error of a VA examiner to a CAVC judge. The record clearly speaks for itself in that regard. It is, however, the job of an astute CAVC judge to notice that the tenets of Accevedo were not met. Not to put too fine a point to it but had the VA Examiner truly read the STRs as a whole, as Judge Kasold insists, it would seem (s)he’s medical acumen is on a par with Cupcake’s standard poodle.    Somebody call Amy Odom quick. That is, assuming Mr. Wildhaber is not licensed to practice at the Federal Circuit. Kenny Carpenter’s mellifluous voice would sound perfect on oral arguments for ol’ Billie. 120 days and the clock started ticking on July 9th.

Just think. A $39.95 blood laboratory test for HBsAG -our old friend the Australia Antigens test  (or Hepatitis B surface antigens test) that reveals all and has since 1970. A positive result means you’ve had Hepatitis B in the past. A negative result indicates it’s Hepatitis A. And nobody even bothered to check all these years. Mr. Wildhaber would be wise to consider one.

Boy howdy do I love VA HCV law. This is like walking the dog and you aren’t even required to scoop the poop. I should have been an attorney. Hopefully that will be changing soon…

About asknod

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


  1. Vicki Foley says:

    I hope this poor guy has the wherewithal to take it to the Federal Circuit. I don’t know if his attorney is up to the task. Maybe someone who is can provide an Amicus brief or something. I almost think we should take up a collection to cover the filing fee, this is so egregious and can be done to any veteran if this one is allowed to survive unchallenged.

  2. Jon Schmidt says:

    What was known in 1973 was in cases of non-specific hepatitis an Australian antigen test should have been ordered. If only to r/o B. Most likely the test results would of been lost but there is always an offhand chance the individuals records would show the test was ordered. could serve as a confirmation of sorts. Local clinics would not be able to process so blood draw would of been sent to Walter Reed. A 91C would be able to order the test.

    • asknod says:

      It was called the Australia antigens test , and yes a positive reaction , or HBsAg POS (Hepatitis B surface antigens test) in the charts would have been the iceing on the cake. Which is not to say it isn’t there, either. If the VA examiner misconstrued this as badly as it seems. Knowing (and having had Hep. B myself in 71), Billie’s was acute B for one good reason. The time in hospital was not 7-14 days. He went in in early October and came out mid November for a period well over the number of days you have or are quarantined for Hep. A. The diagnosis was pretty specific. The military doctors said it was “viral hepatitis” Read it. Here’s the unredacted BVA decision.

      The military at that time wasn’t interested in what kind it was and wasn’t buying antigen testing unless it was some Senator’s son. I never got it so that sorta means Air America wasn’t either. I found out it was B in 92 and the C in 94. The Military test was if you stayed jaundiced for a month it was viral. If you cleared up after ten days it was infectious. This knowledge seems to be lost now along with viral meaning Hepatitis A. You realize what this says about the VA medical profession?

  3. Frank says:

    “I should have been an attorney. Hopefully that will be changing soon…”

    “Soon,” eh? How does one sign up for that day? You have one of those take-a-number things?

    • asknod says:

      Well, knowing the VA, it’ll be akin to giving birth to an elephant. It will be done at a high level, it will only be accomplished with much bellowing and screaming and lastly, require a minimum of 21 months to gestate.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.