Source: http://slideplayer.com/slide/2376254/
Timestamp: 2017-03-27 11:11:16
Document Index: 439518530

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1154', '§3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 19', '§ 19', '§ 7105', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 5103', '§ 3', '§ 7101', '§ 7104']

2  There are basic eligibility requirements for VA disability benefits  There are multiple elements that are required to establish entitlement to. - ppt download
2  There are basic eligibility requirements for VA disability benefits  There are multiple elements that are required to establish entitlement to.
Published byLiam Jewitt
Presentation on theme: "2  There are basic eligibility requirements for VA disability benefits  There are multiple elements that are required to establish entitlement to."— Presentation transcript:
2  There are basic eligibility requirements for VA disability benefits  There are multiple elements that are required to establish entitlement to service connection  There are multiple ways (i.e., theories of entitlement) to establish entitlement to service connection √ √√ SC Established! √ √√√√ √√√√ Basic eligibility requirements Elements Multiple theories of entitlement
3  Qualifying service (basic eligibility)  Current disability (element)  In-service injury or disease or aggravation of such(element)  Nexus between the current disability and the in- service disease or injury (element)
4  Claimant must be a “veteran” (or a dependent of a “veteran”)  A “veteran” is a person with “ active military... service ” and who was discharged “under conditions other than dishonorable. ”  “Active military service” includes:  Active Duty  Active Duty for Training (ACDUTRA)  Inactive Duty for Training (INACDUTRA)  Source to establish “active military service” = service department records  VA is bound by service department findings
5  Competent evidence of a current disability ◦ ex: medical diagnosis by a variety of professionals, to include MDs, nurses, chiropractors, social workers, psychologists and others with specialized knowledge, education, experience or training to render them qualified to provide a diagnosis  VA or private medical records  Letters or statements by physicians ◦ Disabilities capable of lay observation ~ if a disability is the type that can be observed by a lay person (ex: varicose veins, tinnitus), then a separate medical diagnosis may not be required  A disability that resolves during the appeal period may still be service connected
 Pain without a diagnosed or identifiable underlying malady or condition does not constitute a disability, but it may be adequate to trigger the need for a VA examination.  Congenital diseases, but not defects, are considered disabilities. A medical opinion may be required to determine whether a condition is properly classified as a congenital disease or defect.
 VA’s duty to assist a Veteran by affording an opportunity for a VA examination  Low threshold to trigger this duty to assist ◦ McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006)  ( 1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability  (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service  (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with service 7
8  Some claimants may not possess the necessary knowledge to accurately describe to VA what disease or injury is being claimed ◦ ex: “I have a leg disorder”  Does this mean arthritis? sciatica? rash?  VA may thus have to determine the disability being claimed ◦ Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009)  VA should not limit review only to the diagnosis alleged by the claimant  Instead, VA consideration should include all diagnoses which may reasonably be encompassed by several factors including: the claimant’s description of the claim; the symptoms the claimant describes; and the information the claimant submits or that the Secretary obtains in support of the claim ◦ VA’s duty to fully and sympathetically develop a claim to its optimum and to determine all potential claims raised by the evidence
9  Medical or lay evidence of an in-service event/injury/disease ◦ Documented event or treatment in service records ◦ Veteran’s description of symptoms ◦ Buddy statements/statements from family members ◦ Letters written during service describing the event/injury/disease ◦ Newspaper articles Missing service records (1973 Fire at National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis) ◦ VA’s heightened duty to assist ~ VA must obtain unit records and research unit histories
 May be reflected in a veteran’s service treatment records.  Even if there is no medical evidence of a particular injury or disease in service, a veteran is competent to report such disease or injury and a determination needs to be made as to whether any such report is credible. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
 If a veteran engaged in combat, lay evidence that an injury or disease was incurred in service will be accepted as sufficient proof of an in-service disease or injury if such evidence is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships, of the veteran’s service.  38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b).
12  Connection between current disability and in-service incident ◦ ex: medical opinion  Competing Medical Opinions ◦ VA must consider probative weight of opinions  Knowledge/expertise  Whether claims file was reviewed  Thoroughness of opinion/rationale
 The nexus element is also satisfied if there is medical evidence or credible lay evidence of a continuity of symptomatology. Continuity of symptomatology is established if:   (1) there is evidence that a condition was noted in service (need only be evidence of a symptom in service and does not require an actual diagnosis);   (2) there is evidence of post-service continuity of the same symptomatology; and   (3) there is medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence that the post-service symptomatology is related to the present disability.  Be aware of the recent case Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013) which limited continuity of symptomatology to diseases listed in §3.309(a).
 Aggravation of a Pre-Service (i.e., pre- existing) Disorder ◦ “Aggravation” means a permanent worsening beyond natural progression ◦ Must be more than a temporary flare-up 14
KEY: “Noted” on service entry vs. NOT “Noted” ◦ If the condition was “noted” on service entry examination, then presumption of aggravation attaches ~  if condition increased in severity during active service, then VA will consider it to have been aggravated by service (unless specific finding that the increase in disability was due to natural progress of disease) 15 Service Entry Examination *Defective hearing on examination
◦ If the condition was NOT “noted” on service entry examination, then Veteran presumed to have been in sound condition upon entry ~ ◦ If presumed sound on entry, then direct service connection may be established  Only way to rebut soundness presumption = VA must show by clear and unmistakable (i.e., undebatable) evidence BOTH that (1)the injury/disease existed before entry and (2)that it was not aggravated by service (HIGH Standard) See Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 16 Service Entry Examination *Normal hearing on examination
 A pre-existing injury or disease is considered to have been aggravated by active service where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of the disease.  Aggravation may not be conceded where the disability underwent no increase in severity during service on the basis of all the evidence of record pertaining to the manifestations of the disability prior to, during, and subsequent to service.
Presumptions  Disability not diagnosed during active service, but it is presumed to be related to active service because it arose within a specified time period after discharge  Liberalizing rule ~ Congress has directed that certain diseases shall be presumed to be service connected (unless there is affirmative evidence that it is not related to service) ◦ Theory behind presumptions ~ idea that the designated disease that first manifested post-service probably had its beginnings during service because of the nature of that identified disease 18
 Presumptive Diseases (full list: 38 C.F.R. 3.309) ◦ Chronic diseases = permanent diseases that may wax and wane but never go away  ex: hypertension, diabetes mellitus, tuberculosis ◦ Tropical diseases  ex: cholera, malaria, yellow fever ◦ Diseases of Former POWs  ex: beriberi, cirrhosis, IBS, chronic dysentery ◦ Radiogenic diseases ~ must have participated in a “radiation-risk activity”  ex: leukemia, various cancers ◦ Diseases associated with Agent Orange Exposure  ex: chloracne, various cancers ◦ Lou Gehrig’s Disease ( see 38 C.F.R. § 3.118) 19
 Diseases associated with exposure to mustard gas or Lewisite (38 C.F.R. § 3.316).  Undiagnosed illness/infectious diseases in “Persian Gulf veterans,” as that term is defined by regulation (38 C.F.R. § 3.317).  Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (38 C.F.R. § 3.318).  Tuberculosis disease (38 C.F.R. § 3.371).
 Presumptive Periods ◦ Typically must manifest within 1-year of discharge (i.e., some chronic and tropical diseases) ◦ Some may manifest at any time after discharge (i.e., former POWs)  NOTE : If a Veteran cannot establish service connection on a presumptive basis, s/he may still establish service connection under another theory! 21
22 Secondary Service Connection  A disability that is proximately due to or the result of an already service connected disability  ex: peripheral neuropathy secondary to service connected diabetes mellitus Or a disability that is aggravated (made worse) by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.
 Elements : ◦ An already service connected disability ◦ A second disorder ◦ Medical evidence of a nexus between the service connected disability and the creation of or aggravation of the second disorder 23
 For claims filed after October 10, 2006, aggravation by a service-connected disability is not conceded unless a baseline for the claimed disability can be established prior to any aggravation.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b).
 Competency ◦ Medical evidence  requires proper knowledge, skills or specialized training ◦ Lay evidence  must have personal knowledge of matter derived from his/her own senses  competent testimony is thus limited to that which the witness has actually observed, and is within the realm of his personal knowledge 25
 What is lay evidence? – Any written or verbal evidence from someone who does not have expertise in a relevant profession, such as medical or legal training, or other specialized training or expertise.  If the lay evidence relates to a matter that would require medical expertise, you need to assess whether the lay provider has any specialized training or expertise (such as being a doctor, nurse, etc.)  Symptoms vs. Diagnoses - Veterans can generally report information as to symptoms experienced, but not diagnoses (unless he or she is a trained medical professional).  If lay evidence relates to symptomatology, it almost always will be competent evidence as a lay person can report symptoms that he or she personally experiences, such as pain, limitation of motion, etc.  For service connection cases, lay evidence may raise a potential continuity of symptomatology issue to address both in terms of deciding whether an examination or opinion must be provided or obtained, and in deciding the claim on the merits..
Asthma Symptoms Tinnitus Headaches, dizziness, etc. Pain in feet; Flat Feet (Pes Planus) Knee Symptoms Dislocated Shoulder & Broken Leg Hip Disorder with Rotated Foot Varicose Veins Psychiatric Symptoms (Paranoid Schizophrenia) Fall Injury/Trauma Some Skin Disorders (such as a rash) Frostbite Residuals. Lay Evidence is competent to report: Cancers Cause of Death Bronchial Asthma Meniere’s Disease Rheumatic Fever Chondromalacia Disk Herniation Diagnosis of any other medical condition that requires specialized training to diagnose.
 Credibility ◦ VA considers all statements made in the context of entire record ◦ Some credibility factors:  Internal consistency or lack thereof  Facial plausibility  Consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the claimant  Demeanor of witness (if hearing held)  Bias  Character 28
 VA must consider the competency and credibility of lay evidence as it relates to all necessary elements and evidentiary hurdles in establishing a claim for benefits, to include: ◦ Current diagnosis ◦ Nexus ◦ Continuity of symptoms ◦ Occurrence of an event in service ◦ Combat or other circumstances of service 29
 Change in Law or Regulation  Inadequate or Incomplete Development  To consider evidence received in the 1 st instance  Due Process problems 31
 AMC – Appeals Management Center  RO – Regional Offices  VAMC – VA Medical Centers  Various Medical Schools  Pittsburgh, PA RO  National Cemetery Administration 32
 Due Process/Procedure ◦ Stegall violation, Manlincon, Hearing request, Inextricably Intertwined Issues  VCAA Notice ◦ Secondary, New & Material (Kent), Death Notice (Hupp)  Proper Development ◦ Private treatment records, VA treatment records, Social Security records, medical examinations or opinions, inadequate examinations 33
 BVA Hearing requested  Stegall  Manlincon  New Evidence  Inextricably Intertwined Issues 34
 A previous remand confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand orders ◦ Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998)  There must be substantial compliance with the previous remand orders (i.e.; not strict compliance) ◦ D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (2008) 35
 The general practice is to remand for a Statement of the Case where the Veteran filed a timely Notice of Disagreement, but no Statement of the Case has been issued ◦ Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240- 41 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 19.9  Sometimes in VACOLS (the system used to track where cases are at within VA) you can see the NOD has been acknowledged, but an SOC has not been issued yet. Most Judges will remand this for Manlincon, some will not 36
 Pertinent, non-duplicative, evidence received at BVA or at the RO after the last SOC (or SSOC) must be first considered by the RO ◦ 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.37(a), 20.1304(c)  Unless there is a waiver of RO consideration ◦ If there is no waiver in file, then:  REMAND if no representative or a state representative (ex. Texas Veterans Commission), but  ADMINISTRATIVELY SUBMIT to national rep and have them waive/contact Veteran to determine if he or she wants to waive RO review of the evidence (Form 3230 to Admin staff)  See Chairman’s Memorandum 01-05-09 Change in law – opposite presumption- Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 ◦ 38 U.S.C. § 7105(e)(1) (effective 180 days after 8/6/12) ◦ Where new evidence has been submitted, the Board may review it unless  There is a request for RO review  Applicable only where VA-9 filed on or after effective date (2/2/13) 37
 What to look for: ◦ The Veteran has at least two issues pending and one cannot be decided without another being decided as well  Example: You are remanding for a VAX to determine the severity of the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability and he/she is also claiming entitlement to a TDIU (total disability rating). You will need to first know what the Veteran’s percentage of disability is and then consider whether a TDIU rating is warranted based on all of the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities.  You cannot decide one issue without consideration of another issue that you are remanding ◦ Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991); Tyrues v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166, 177 (2009) 38
 Disabilities/issues that Veteran has raised- (Secondary, Increased Rating, Etc.) ◦ Make sure the Veteran has received the proper notice for his or her claims in their VCAA letter  The elements of a SC PTSD claim based on personal assault require a specialized notice letter ◦ 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5) ◦ This informs the Veteran that there are different ways to substantiate his or her claim as many times assaults are not reported or recorded in treatment records  Particular requirements for Cause of Death claims ◦ Hupp v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 342, 352-353 (2007), rev’d on other grounds, Hupp v. Shinseki, 329 Fed. Appx. 277 (Fed. Cir. May 19, 2009)  Particular requirements for New and Material claims ◦ Kent v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 1, 10-11 (2006) 39
 Failure to Notify of Inability to Obtain Records  Must Obtain Federal Records  Reasonable Efforts to Obtain Private Records  Obtaining Examinations  Inadequate Examinations  General Information for Proper Development in Remands 40
 RO must notify the Veteran that it was unable to get federal or private treatment records ◦ 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e)  Look for a notice letter to the Veteran informing him/her that the RO was unable to obtain specific records, but that the Veteran can submit them on their own ◦ Also look for a Formal Finding of Unavailability from an employee of the RO documenting what steps were taken to look for documents and the responses received (in memo format in the claims file, Formal Finding is an internal document not sent to the Veteran) 41
 VA efforts to obtain federal records must continue until the records are obtained unless it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(3).  Constructive receipt of VA records - VA is in constructive possession of all VA generated records. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 612- 13 (1992).  Service treatment records may be relevant even in increased rating claims ◦ Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369, 1372-1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009)  There is a duty to obtain records in New and Material evidence cases where the Veteran is attempting to reopen their claim ◦ 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)
 Relevant records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) need to be obtained and associated with the claims file ◦ Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ◦ This is for Social Security benefits based on disability or Supplemental Security Income benefits which are based on age, disability, and income  Not records from the SSA where the Veteran receives benefits due to age or retirement ◦ Be watching for references to SSA benefits to appear in any sort of records!  While at a VA treatment facility the Veteran might report that he/she is receiving disability  Financial statements that have a blank for disability or SSA monthly payment 43
 When STRs are missing or destroyed, VA has a heightened duty to: (1) assist a Veteran in developing a claim, (2) consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule, and (3) explain its findings and conclusions.  Development actions to take include:  Inform the Veteran that his or her service records are missing or have likely been destroyed.  Ask the Veteran to send any copies of service records in his or her possession, as well as “buddy” statements.  Request that the Veteran complete a NA Form 13055 (Request for Information Needed to Reconstruct Medical Data) and/or NA Form 13075 (Questionnaire About Military Service).  Advise the Veteran of alternative documents that he or she may submit or request assistance in procuring.  Request Surgeon General’s Office (SGO) Extracts and Morning/Sick Reports, as appropriate, depending on the period of service.  Request any other warranted development. 44
 What to look for: ◦ References to treatment by providers other than at a VA Medical Center (VAMC) ◦ The Veteran might identify private treatment providers at a hearing, or it may be noted on a VA examination report ◦ The Veteran may have signed an authorization to release the records to the VA- these releases are sent out with the initial VCAA notice and the Veteran fills it out and sends it back  “Reasonable efforts” to get private records  BE AWARE- releases for private treatment records are only valid for 180 days. If the time has lapsed since the Veteran initially signed it (which it most likely has), then in the Remand request that the RO provide a new release to obtain outstanding private treatment records. 45
VA's duty to assist requires that a VA medical examination and/or opinion must be provided when there is insufficient medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on a claim, and there is: (1)competent evidence of a current disability, or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability; (2)evidence that an event, injury or disease occurred in service, or during an applicable presumptive period; and (3)an indication that the disability or symptoms may be associated with the Veteran's service, or with another service connected condition.
Opinions Contrary to Governing Legal or Evidentiary Standards: Clinician provides an opinion that a condition is not related to service for no other reason than that  the condition was not diagnosed in service,  no symptoms were recorded during service, or  there is “no documented” link between the current condition and service. Direct Service Connection, and Continuity of Symptomatology – lay evidence is often for consideration but fails to be addressed; failure to understand that documentation in service records is not required. Conclusory, Incomplete, or Contradictory Analyses – a fully reasoned rationale is needed that addresses pertinent medical evidence.
 Combat and Direct Service Connection— Mistaken assumption that simply because a condition is not documented in service that service connection is therefor prohibited.  Opinion based on inaccurate medical or factual history.  Does not review claims file.  All legal theories of entitlement not addressed, such as Allen aggravation.  Refusal of examiners to provide opinions on the basis of “speculation.”
 Be sure the Veteran’s service records (Personnel or Treatment) are in the claims file  Look to see if records were requested, but never received from The Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) or The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC)  Radiation Claims- Specific development needed to determine if the Veteran was exposed to radiation and the amount of radiation Veteran was exposed to  Agent Orange/Herbicide Claims- Specific development needed if the Veteran did not serve in Vietnam OR if the Veteran alleges he served in Vietnam, but there is no record of this OR if he was aboard a ship  Asbestos Claims- Might need specific development if Veteran is claiming asbestos exposure (generally a VA exam or opinion) 49
 Do not limit the RO or AMC in where to look for records, just request the records OR designate a specific repository but provide an outlet ◦ “Or any other appropriate source”  Remember that if the Veteran is treated at a hospital in service, these records are generally kept with records for the specific hospital and not with the Veteran’s own STRs  Psych or mental health treatment records are also generally not kept with the STRs 50
51  Inadequate discussion  Failure to address credibility/evidence  Failure to consider existing case law  Medical opinion/examination required  Failure to consider laws/regulations  Other due process violation  Failure to comply with prior remand  VA medical records  Service department records  Other Duty to Assist
52  Review the monthly QR Reports to get an idea of problems QR or the Court find that necessitate remands  VA medical records  Current findings (medical examination/opinion)  Incomplete/inadequate findings  Private medical records  No VA examination conducted  Social Security records  Board travel/video hearing  Adjudicate intertwined issue(s)  Noncompliance/Stegall  Issue SOC/Manlincon
Board of Veterans’ Appeals Overview September 2013
54 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) Mission “... to conduct hearings and dispose of appeals properly before the Board in a timely manner.” 38 U.S.C. § 7101(a). Jurisdiction “All questions in a matter which... is subject to decision by the Secretary shall be subject to one review on appeal to the Secretary. Final decisions on such appeals shall be made by the Board.” 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Office of SECVA* VBA VHA NCA * The Board is a Staff Organization that reports directly to the Secretary.
 Right to Appeal. Veterans, Dependents of Veterans, and Survivors of Veterans have a right to appeal all decisions regarding VA benefits.  One year to Appeal. Veterans have one year to initiate an appeal of a VBA Regional Office (RO) decision.*  Multi-Stage VA Appeals System. Most of the stages for appeals processing occur at the VBA RO level. If the matter is not resolved to the Veteran’s satisfaction, the appeal may be transferred to the Board for a final agency decision. See Life Cycle of a VA Appeal Pictorial (Appendix).  Board Review. The Board conducts a de novo review of the entire case, meaning that it considers all evidence without deference to factual findings and legal conclusions at the VBA RO level.  Federal Court Review. If a Veteran remains dissatisfied with a Board decision, they may appeal outside the Agency to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), the Federal Circuit and ultimately to the United States Supreme Court. * Approximately 96 percent of the Board’s incoming workload comes from VBA; the other 4 percent comes from different sources, such as NCA, VHA, and OGC. 55
56 Organizational Chart Chairman (EX) VACANT Executive in Charge Laura H. Eskenazi Chairman (EX) VACANT Executive in Charge Laura H. Eskenazi Deputy Vice Chairman (SES / VLJ) Joaquin Aguayo-Pereles Deputy Vice Chairman (SES / VLJ) Joaquin Aguayo-Pereles Deputy Vice Chairman (SES / VLJ) Dave Spickler Deputy Vice Chairman (SES / VLJ) Dave Spickler Director Management, Planning & Analysis (SES) Bruce Gipe Director Management, Planning & Analysis (SES) Bruce Gipe Principal Deputy Vice Chairman (SES / VLJ) Appellate Group VACANT Principal Deputy Vice Chairman (SES / VLJ) Appellate Group VACANT Chief Counsel Policy & Procedure (SL) James Ridgway Chief Counsel Policy & Procedure (SL) James Ridgway Chief Counsel Operations (SL) Donnie Hachey Chief Counsel Operations (SL) Donnie Hachey Vice Chairman (SES / VLJ) Laura H. Eskenazi Vice Chairman (SES / VLJ) Laura H. Eskenazi Chief VLJ * Dennis Chiappetta Chief VLJ * Dennis Chiappetta Chief VLJ Cherry Crawford Chief VLJ Cherry Crawford Chief VLJ James March Chief VLJ James March Chief VLJ Kimberly Osborne Chief VLJ Kimberly Osborne Chief VLJ Robert Sullivan Chief VLJ Robert Sullivan Chief VLJ Theresa Catino Chief VLJ Theresa Catino Chief VLJ Linda Howell Chief VLJ Linda Howell Chief VLJ John Jones Chief VLJ John Jones Chief VLJ Cheryl Mason Chief VLJ Cheryl Mason Chief VLJ Claudia Trueba Chief VLJ Claudia Trueba * VLJ = Veterans Law Judge Note: Chief VLJs supervise VLJs, Senior Counsel (GS-15), and attorneys (GS 9-14) Executive Assistant (GS-15) Barbara C. Morton Executive Assistant (GS-15) Barbara C. Morton Special Assistant (GS-14) Nicole Klassen Special Assistant (GS-14) Nicole Klassen Chief, HR Liaison (GS-14) SueAnn Jennings Chief, HR Liaison (GS-14) SueAnn Jennings
FY 2012 Performance ► 12,334 Hearings o Every VLJ conducts Travel Board hearings in the field, plus additional video hearings ► 44,300 Decisions o 52 VLJs produce 752 or more decisions each year o Attorneys support VLJs; each must produce at least 156 case credits per year 57
 Decision ◦ De novo review of entire claims file (i.e., full review of all evidence) ◦ Final decision of VA ◦ Appealable to the CAVC ◦ In FY2012, the Board had a grant rate of 28.4% and a denial rate of 22.5%  Remand ◦ Directs development by the local field office (most often to VBA’s Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC ◦ In FY2012, the Board had a remand rate of 45.8% 58
Approximately 25% of appellants request an optional hearing.  Central Office ◦ VLJ & Veteran sit at Board Offices in Washington, DC ◦ FYTD 4%  Travel Board ◦ VLJ & Veteran sit at local RO ◦ FYTD 46%  Video Conference ◦ VLJ sits in DC; Veteran sits at local RO ◦ FYTD 50% 59
 Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) ◦ Represent approximately 80% of appellants before the Board  Attorneys ◦ Represent approximately 9% of appellants before the Board  Pro se ◦ Approximately 9% of appellants before the Board elect to represent themselves Note: approximately 2% of appellants before the Board are represented by other types of agents. 60
61 Board Staffing * with $8M additional funding Source: Report of the Chairman (FY07-FY12)
62 There is a direct and proportional correlation between the number of Board employees and the number of decisions produced per year, with an average of approximately 90 decisions produced per FTE. As VBA’s workload grows, so too does the Board’s
 Leveraging Technology to Streamline Operations ◦ Full partnership in VA Transformation efforts (i.e., VBMS) ◦ Increasing Video Teleconference (VTC) Hearings ◦ Virtual Docket, virtualize mail, VSO Informal Hearing Presentations (IHPs), and Board hearing transcripts  Reducing Remands through Joint Training Initiative ◦ Partnering with VBA to reduce appeals and the rework required when the Board remands to VBA ◦ Partnering with VHA to improve quality of VA examinations to prevent remands for new examinations/additional medical opinions  Shorter Board Decisions for appeals that can be allowed or remanded  Intense Hiring program ◦ In FY 2013, BVA hired more than 100 new attorneys ◦ We also announced VLJ opening and are in process of making selections 63
66 Notice of Disagreement to Statement of the Case Appeal Initiated: An appeal is initiated by the Veteran filing a “Notice of Disagreement” (NOD) at VBA. New Decision by VBA: VBA reviews the record again, conducts any additional evidentiary development required by law, and issues a decision called a “Statement of the Case” (SOC). FY 2012 Average Time Interval: From VBA’s receipt of a NOD to its issuance of the SOC: 270 days (Source: VACOLS Reports)
Formal Appeal: If a Veteran is dissatisfied with the Statement of the Case, the Veteran may file a formal appeal at VBA, called a “Substantive Appeal” (VA Form 9). Additional Decision(s) by VBA: If there are any changes in the record, like new evidence, VBA may need to issue one or more new decisions called a “Supplemental Statement of the Case” (SSOC). Transfer of Appeal to the Board: When VBA finishes the appeal, they “Certify” and transfer the claims file to the Board for a final decision. FY 2012 Average Time Interval: From VBA’s receipt of the Form 9 to certification and transfer of appeal to the Board : 692 days (Source: VACOLS Reports) 67
68 Final Decision. The Board renders final decisions on appeals on behalf of the Secretary. FY 2012 Average Time Interval: From the Board’s receipt of the claims file to issuance of a Board decision: 251 days (Source: VACOLS Reports)
69  United States Code (U.S.C.) Title 38  Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Title 38  How Do I Appeal? Pamphlet ~ www.bva.va.gov/docs/Pamphlets/010202A.pdf  Office of the Chairman, (202) 632-4603  Executive in Charge /Vice Chairman Laura H. Eskenazi
Download ppt "2  There are basic eligibility requirements for VA disability benefits  There are multiple elements that are required to establish entitlement to."
Similar presentations Board hearing process: An overview Steven D. Reiss, Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board)
Cheryl Mason Chief Veterans Law Judge June
VA Form 646 How to make it count 12/25/2015The American Legion**Cajun A. Comeau**DSO, NC.
Fully Developed Claims (FDC). The “AVERAGE” claim processing time at the Chicago Regional Office is over 300 days. The “TYPICAL” claim processing time.
FULLY DEVELOPED CLAIMS (FDC). 1. VA Form EZ Fully Developed Claim (Compensation) 2. VA Form EZ Fully Developed Claim (Pension) 3. VA Form.
Veterans, VA, and PTSD Claims NAMI, June Veterans, VA, and PTSD Claims Introduction of Bergmann & Moore Iraq / Afghanistan War Statistics What.
Introduction to the United States Department of Veterans Affairs.