Source: https://asknod.org/2015/02/02/cavc-wages-v-mcdonald-read-em-and-weep/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:21:44+00:00

Document:
← LZ CORK–BOB LOCKETT’S LP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LZ.
CAVC–WAGES V McDONALD–READ ‘EM AND WEEP.
In what Law dogs from NOVA Sea to Shining NVLSP Sea have hoped for years, the long-ignored 38 USC §511’s codicil about how only the Board(s) could make the final decision on an appeal from the Agency of Original Jurisdiction was finally “discovered” by the Court. One decision on appeal suddenly has to mean what Congress intended. You can’t insert the Director of Compensation and Pension into the lineup like a designated hitter. What’s funny is the enlightened folks up at the OGC just couldn’t digest that.
This has to be as unsettling as Walker v Shinseki was for Vets. Here VA has had a path to denial on extraschedular in effect for almost fifty years and suddenly the Court up and reads 38 CFR §4.16(b) literally. And it conflicts (or shall we say collides) with 38 USC §511. VA maintains that it only conflicts if you read it wrong. Ergo, if you read it in the light most favorable to VA, then it’s peachy keen. Unfortunately, Congress wrote it and VA merely is tasked with interpreting it into a regulation. Watch as the Word Wizards at the Court tie the VA up in knots with their own semantics.
Willie C. Wages filed at the Drew Carey Memorial VARO in Columbus Ohio back in the early 80’s and got a few 0% ratings. He finally came back and began building his TDIU in 2000-2010. He was out of work, unemployable and had a rat’s nest of 30%rs, 20%rs and a lot of 10s and 0s. No singular disease was enough to create the benchmark of 40% to add up to a combined 70% nor did he have a singular one of 60%. By 2009 he had enough to do so and applied. VA and the BVA refused to budge. In a showing of what we all know is pure dog and pony show, the BVA judge made a grand gesture of sending out for the Director of Compensation and Pension to wave his magic wand over it and make an informed decision. No dice.
The big error here, for all these years, was to involve the Director in it at all. He became a de facto judge in his own right and Vets didn’t get a “hearing” or an opportunity to rebut his findings. He became a third wheel in what was supposed to be a two step process. Anything he said could not be evidence against you because he wasn’t part of the BVA/VARO adjudication scheme.
Willie’s predicament has been suffered by so many as to be joke. Nobody gets extraschedular unless he/she is related to the VASEC or Laura Eskinazi. The Court decided to disassemble §4.16(b) and look at the component pieces. All was well until you insert the Dir. of Comp/Pen into it. The Court takes the magnanimous position that if you want to write goofy regulations, that’s your business but don’t let them conflict with the USC’s tenets.
Although the Secretary initially argued that the Director’s decision was indeed evidence upon which the Board could rely, the Secretary now contends, in response to the above-mentioned order, that the Director’s decision is not evidence. Rather, the Secretary now argues that, although the Board may review the factual basis of the Director’s decision to ensure that it is accurate and complete, § 4.16(b) operates to divest the Board of the authority to overturn a Director’s decision because determinations under § 4.16(b) are policy decisions committed to the Director’s sole discretion. A contrary view, the Secretary argues, would render the referral process in §4.16(b) meaningless, time consuming, and unnecessary.
On its face, the regulatory scheme created by § 4.16(b) merely withholds from rating boards the authority to grant extraschedular TDIU in the first instance. Indeed, nothing in the language of § 4.16(b) purports to limit the Board’s scope of review of the Director’s decision.
Moreover, even if the plain language of the regulation could be interpreted as limiting the Board’s scope of review and precluding a final Board decision that was contrary to the Director’s § 4.16(b) determination, such an interpretation would contravene the clear congressional intent expressed in 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) that the Board shall be the final authority on all benefits decisions.
Ruh-oh, Rorge rote it rong.
In short, the Director’s decision is no different than an RO’s decision in terms of its effect on the Board’s statutory jurisdiction and the Board’s standard of review.
The judges just keep digging the pit deeper and deeper. Lord knows, the OGC gave them a wealth of shovels to do so. Here’ the clothesline moment. Hizzoner the Secretary is free to write them regulations up any old way he wants to. We don’t see any conflict. If he wants to drive to Boston via Denver, why, by all means have at it.
As to the Secretary’s argument that de novo review of the Director’s decision by the Board renders the referral process in § 4.16(b) meaningless, we note that such a referral is the Secretary’s chosen procedure under § 4.16(b). Withholding the authority of granting extraschedular TDIU from the numerous and various ROs can provide a degree of uniformity over such decisions that would be difficult to maintain if each RO were permitted to award extraschedular TDIU.
The upside to this decision is long overdue. For years, the Director of Comp/Pen has wielded unparalleled power over all extraschedular decisions and rarely awarded any- even in the face of judges inclined to do so. Many are the Vets who ended up on the losing end of this logic-especially on appeal. From here on out the VA is put on notice that the Board has to be the bad guy and deny the extraschedular instead of making the Director the bad guy. Willie’s TDIU gets remanded back for a do over and the Director’s testimony gets tossed. It’s a win-win for us and one more positive step towards what is legitimately ours via §511.
2015 promises a wealth of these Veteran-friendly decisions. Willie might have to appeal all over again but I don’t think he will have to, personally. The writing on the wall for extraschedular is out of the closet. BVA judges are going to have a tough time finding good reasons and bases for denial with this precedent hanging over them.
This entry was posted in CAVC Knowledge, TDIU, Tips and Tricks and tagged ASKNOD BOOK, asknod.org, asknod@wordpress.com, CAVC--Wages V McDonald, CAvC/COvA Decisions, Disabled Veteran, DIY vA Claims, Gulf War Claims Help, Gulf War Vets, Gulf War Vets Help, HCV Veterans, HCVETS, Help with vA Claims, Helping Veterans, Korean War Vets Help, Service Connection, Total Disability Due to Individual Unemployment, VA claims, Veterans Benefits, Veterans claims help, Vietnam Veterans Claims Help.. Bookmark the permalink.
3 Responses to CAVC–WAGES V McDONALD–READ ‘EM AND WEEP.
My case is so similar. I was awarded 100% in 1998 from a case that began in 1986. I filed for retro in 1998 and it now sits at the BVA after the denial by the director. The BVA admin judge and a COVA justice both wrote in my appeal that the VA failed in 1987 to reopen the 1986 claim for unemployability and in 2014 the RO said if I had the percentage a date of July 1986 would apply. There are not disputes. I even offered a 1990 date because that was the first time a VA doctor wrote official that I was totally disabled! Some might ask why I would give back anything and it was I just want this ended. Its has so consumed and altered my life esp up to 1999 with homelessness, lack of proper care and a host of BS in my life I just want to be done with the VA. If you want to know how random the VA is in 2014 on 9-11 I received two packages from the VA on from RO with a denial but a note my request for a BVA hearing was received and the other from the AMC in GA with a SSOC telling me my NOD had been received. Two days later I get a hearing date in October 2014. Then nothing after the hearing. I get a letter from the lovely Laura Eskinazi in June 2015 saying they are working on it have no fear. This case above gives me hope.
“what you talkin bout willis?” you mean VA was writing policy contrary to Congressional intent? Do I see a greenhouse somewhere out there?

References: §511
 §4
 §511
 §4
 § 4
 § 4
 §4
 § 4
 § 4
 § 4
 § 7104
 § 4
 § 4
 §511