I’ve got a wicked case of RA in the R hand from too many legal briefs at an interim desk. I’ve already lost R ring and pinkie to it and now, temporarily the whole hand. It looks like an over inflated balloon. This is one-handed but I have to. I spotted this comment from one N Shari and it breaks my heart. VA has constructed an SMC system taken from Congress’ 38 USC §1114 to prescribe what you get for what and when it’s applicable. No one ever said it was equitable. We litigators have learned to work around the impediments and obtain the highest SMCs because of the flaws in VA’s logic. As many times as they say Auer/Chevron deference should be granted to the Secretary’s cockamamie interpretations, the Court has often held in the obverse when presented at the CAFC. Thank you, Howard.
But first, a hard charger advocate, Jim Perciavalle, contacted me yesterday morning and informed me of a CAVC oral brief being argued that morning before Allen, Jacquith and Falvey on SMC. It’s a daisy. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen an OGC law dog totally bushwhacked with a question who kept trying to blow it off with M 21 logic. Finally, 11 minutes into her brief, she had to beg for a pregnant 4-minute pause to consult with the big boys and get a new legal authority answer. Rots-a-ruck, lady. I’m guessing those judges were all fixated on why her left nostril was 6 times larger than the right. Hell, I was!
This pretty much demonstrates that not only do the local yokels have any idea how this SMC poker game works, but that they are forced to resort to saying some of the damned funniest things to blow off the question. In this case, Ms. Mellissa Willis, hopefully no relation to Bruce, whips out the Mobius loop of illogic and says, no, we’re not asking for Chevron deference for our interpretation of §1114 and contradicts herself less that 3 minutes later. Then says her authority flows from the M 21. Here’s the utube link. It’s hilarious-like watching a deer standing in the road pinned by your headlights. Clueless.
Watch Judge Allen ask her if multiple 1/2 step awards under §3.350(f)(3) can be awarded. Or if (f)(3) and (f) (4) can be awarded simultaneously. Silence…then the obfuscation begins. It’s hilarious tragicomedy and should be required viewing for any who venture into this field to litigate.
Now for Ms. N Shari’s query: