Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/08/5-elements-of-a-claim/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:00:29+00:00

Document:
Decided March 3, 2006) involves many item of interest the only one addressed in this post is the FedCir. and Veteran Courts definition of the 5 elements that make up a claim.
Vargas-Gonzales v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 222, 227 (2001)); App. Din. Suppl.
Br. at 5-11; Amicus Br. at 19, 26, 28.
of Marco Island, Florida, was on the brief, for appellant Donald L.
Susan Paczak, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for appellant Marcellus S.
brief in No. 02-1506, for the appellee.
the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates as amicus curiae.
amended by the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No.
from his service-connected disability. Previous HitDingessNext Hit Record (Din. R.) at 1-14.
prejudicial error pursuant to Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir.
Veterans’ Advocates (NOVA) for its assistance in these appeals.
higher than 10%. Id. at 231.
employable.” Din. R. at 374.
In January 2001, a decision review officer (DRO) increased Mr.
TDIU rating. Id. at 400- 01, 403-08.
showing that his service- connected PTSD had increased in severity. Id.
431. Mr. Previous HitDingessNext Hit again appealed to the Board. Id. at 443- 52, 456.
been satisfied.” Id. at 4. The Board determined that, in May 2001, Mr.
. . . prevent him from obtaining substantially gainful employment.” Id.
decision was vacated and the matter remanded for compliance with the VCAA.
light of the Federal Circuit’s order.
indicate that Mr. Hartman appealed that decision. See id. at 1-206.
and asked VA to obtain certain VA medical records. Id. at 107.
necessary records from various VA facilities. Har. R. at 197.
assignment of effective dates for grants of service connection.
based on the facts of the instant case.
1986 statement, he nevertheless had abandoned his claim at that time. Id.
pursuant to Conway, supra. Hartman v. Principi, 98 Fed. Appx. 885 (Fed.
ordered the February 2002 Board decision vacated, and remanded the matter.
and invited any interested amicus curiae to file a brief. Hartman v.
Principi, 18 Vet.App. 432, 433 (2004) (per curiam order).
demonstrating that VA’s error was not prejudicial. Appellant (App.) Din.
Secretary “failed to fulfill his statutory duty to assist under 38 U.S.C.
App. Din. Br. at 2-5.
10-18; Sec’y Din. Suppl. Br. at 14-18.
extraschedular consideration under 3.321(b)(1). Id. at 19-20.
argued, No. 05-7157 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2006).
law, will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant.
38 U.S.C. 5103(a). On August 29, 2001, the Secretary issued 38 C.F.R.
termed ‘a fourth element of the requisite notice.'” Mayfield, 19 Vet.App.
provided by the claimant and which portion, if any, the Secretary . . .
will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant.'” Quartuccio, 16 Vet.
App. at 187 (quoting 38 U.S.C. 5103(a)).
Power Equip. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 553 (1984)).
The VCAA also requires the Secretary to assist claimants. 38 U.S.C.
connection claimant of the evidence needed to substantiate the claim.
disability) and 5 (effective date of the disability).
substantiate the claim.” 38 U.S.C. 5103(a) (emphasis added); 38 C.F.R.
evidence to substantiate the claim.” Sec’y Din. Suppl. Br. at 5.
evidence to assign the claimant a disability rating and an effective date.
to rebut adverse RO findings on effective dates and disability ratings.
Sec’y Har. Suppl. Br. at 4-5; Sec’y Din. Suppl. Br. at 9.
deciding each element of the claim. 38 U.S.C. 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. 3.
suggests that they are applicable. See Douglas v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App.
could entitle him to disability compensation.”).
Government.” 38 C.F.R. 3.103(a) (2005) (emphasis added). In AB v.
ratings.” Shoemaker, 3 Vet.App. 248, 253 (1992) (emphasis added).
1345-46 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
the process” envisioned by Senator Rockefeller.
is shared with the claimant as part of our notification procedures.
law does not directly address the precise question at issue.” Gallegos v.
dates when those elements are not directly made an issue by the claimant.
notice must be given on these elements of the service-connection claim.
of the application actually filed.
discharge. See Wright v. Gober, 10 Vet.App. 343, 347 (1997).
entitlement to only a 30% rating.” Id. at 39.
than for the first time as part of disagreement with a decision.
emphasis added); see 38 C.F.R.
and “to participate effectively” in the development of the claim.
Mayfield, 19 Vet.App. at 120-21.
the entire legislative scheme of which it is a part.”); see also King v.
mistake or error.” Sutherland, 46:06; see also Splane v. West, 216 F.
3d 1058, 1068-69 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
time limits, to initiate an appeal of the decision.
longer required because the claim has already been substantiated.
that the notice is intended to serve has been fulfilled.
ensure that a claimant receives assistance throughout the appeals process.
argument to contend that any notice error is prejudicial. See In Re: 38 U.
S.C. 7261(b)(2) and Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103 (2005), Misc.
fully developing the record. App. Din. Suppl. Br. at 21-25; App. Har.
error was not prejudicial. App. Din. Suppl. Br. at 25.
that the outcome of the case was affected by the error. Sec’y Din. Suppl.
carry this burden then a notice error is not prejudicial. Sec’y Har.
have been awarded as a matter of law.
the fairness of the adjudication. Id. at 122-23.
further duty to notify Mr. Previous HitDingessNext Hit on how to substantiate his PTSD claim.
Board reasons-or-bases deficiency in discussing how section 5103(a) . . .
the January 2001 DRO decision (Din. R. at 390-92) and January 2001 SOC (Id.
establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships.
veteran] does not have suicidal or homicidal thoughts.
him of how to appeal the decision on his claim. Both letters provided Mr.
VA complied with the procedural statutory requirements of 38 U.S.C.
claim, because of his service-connected disabilities, was not working.
latter statement, the RO denied Mr. Previous HitDingess’Next Hit TDIU claim in May 2000. Id.
requirements or in any way reveals that Mr. Previous HitDingessNext Hit received such notice.
prejudicial. See Mayfield and Conway, both supra.
there was a lack of prejudice. See Sec’y Din. Suppl. Br. at 21-25.
under 4.16 will be remanded for complying notice and readjudication.
limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition.” Further, 38 C.
Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991); 38 C.F.R. 4.1.
to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment.
determining that the preponderance of the evidence was against awarding Mr.
fulfilled his duty to assist under section 5103A(d)(1) by providing Mr.
err by relying on those examinations.
regarding his claim for a TDIU rating. See Best v. Principi, 15 Vet.App.
have the opportunity to present any allegations of error to this Court.
extraschedular consideration under 38 C.F.R. 3.321(b)(1). App. Din. Br.
the application of the regular schedular standards.'” Sec’y Din. Suppl.
Br. at 19-20 (quoting 38 C.F.R. 3.321(b)(1)).
Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.
rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran. See Caluza v.
Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 88, 96 (1996); see EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.
the Board may not simply ignore an issue so raised.'” Beverly v.
when it was neither specifically nor reasonably raised. See Talbert v.
prior to that he was represented by veterans service organizations (Din. R.
or explained why it is not applicable” (citations omitted)).
substance abuse and PTSD symptoms. Id. at 6-7. The Board noted that Mr.
in not discussing 3.321(b)(1) in its statement of reasons or bases. Cf.
Smallwood and Grantham, both supra.
time of the VCAA’s enactment. Therefore, the VCAA applied to his claim.
See Mayfield, 19 Vet.App. at 128; Pelegrini, supra.
substantiated in August 1999. Cf. Mayfield, 19 Vet.App. at 129.
receipt of application within one year after date of discharge), and 38 U.
EED for his service- connected PTSD.
decision, the Federal Circuit in Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (en banc), overruled the grave-procedural-error concept in Hayre.
Court denied that petition. Cook v. Principi, 539 U.S. 926 (2003).
Accordingly, his argument on grave procedural error is now unavailing.
an adequate statement of reasons or bases.
in Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103 (2005), argued, No. 05-7157 (Fed.
been given the authority to write regulations implementing law. See 38 U.
creation of an exception thereto.
hand, we should hold that the Secretary erred by failing to provide Mr.
processing of her claim by VA” (citations omitted)).
claims, they seek the maximum compensation authorized by law. See 38 U.S.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.