Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/06/29/va-doj-persue-keith-roberts-for-filing-disability-claim/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:25:20
Document Index: 722157752

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3', '§\n3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 5112']

VA & DOJ Persue Keith Roberts for Filing Disability Claim | Veteranclaims's Blog
VA & DOJ Persue Keith Roberts for Filing Disability Claim
Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: DOJ; persue; Shredding Records, Keith Roberts; CAVC — veteranclaims @ 3:21 pm
Keith Roberts and his family “were relentlessly pursued by the Bush Department of Justice and Dept of Veterans Affairs (VA) for Roberts’ “tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits” and Roberts’ whistle-blowing accusations that the VA was fraudulently altering his C-file, records containing documents related to his VA claims.”
Writes Scott Horton in Harpers Magazine (Sept 7, 2007):
“The prosecution smacks of retaliation and a plan to suppress veterans claims—Roberts was prosecuted for tenaciously pursuing a claim for benefits, which VA resisted and which is still in the benefits review process.
Roberts was an early whistle blower in the shreddergate veterans scandal, accusing the Milwaukee VA Regional Office of destroying documents in his file and engaging in fraud as the VA was in the process of determining the date from which his retroactive disability pay was to become effective.”
<a href= “http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/19/744505/-Rare-Hearing-for-VA-Claim-by-Jailed-Wisconsin-Veteran-“>Rare Hearing for VA Claim by Jailed Wisconsin Veteran</a>
No. 05-2425
Before GREENE, Chief Judge, and KASOLD, HAGEL, MOORMAN,
LANCE, DAVIS, and SCHOELEN, Judges.
this action may not be cited as precedent .
Veteran Previous HitKeith A. Roberts appeals, through counsel, an August 26, 2005,
decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that determined that a May 1998 VA
regional office decision that had awarded service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (
PTSD) with dysthymia and depression was based upon fraudulent evidence and was therefore the
product of clear and unmistakable error . As a result, the Board concluded that severance of
service connection was proper.
The case was submitted to a panel of judges on January 31, 2008, and on
October 23, 2008, the panel heard oral argument . On May 27, 2009, the case was submitted to
the en banc Court . The full Court has determined that oral argument will “materially assist in
the disposition of this appeal,” and will hear arguments in this matter on July 29, 2009, at 10 :00 AM in the Courtroom. Each party will have 30 minutes to present their arguments .
In anticipation of oral argument, the parties will provide the Court memoranda of law
1 . Once VA determines that a veteran’s service connection is no longer
protected under 38 C.F.R. § 3.957 (2008) due to a finding of fraud, is 38 C .F.R. §
3 .105(d) (2008) applicable to the process of severing such service connection?
2. If § 3 .105(d) is applicable, are there any limitations on its
application in this case?
3 . If 3 .105(d) is applicable, what is the effect of Stallworth v.
Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 482 (2006), with respect to the consideration of the evidence of record in
assessing possible alternative bases for service connection in this case?
4. If § 3 .105(d) is applicable, what is the effect, if any, of the
preamble language of § 3 .105 that reads, “The provisions of this section apply except where
an award was based on an act of commission or omission by the payee, or with his or her
knowledge . . .” on .the procedure for severance of service connection
that is no longer protected under § 3.957 due to a finding of fraud?
5 . If § 3 .105(d) is inapplicable, what is the procedure for severing
service connection that is no longer protected due to a finding of fraud?
6. What effect, if any, does this Court’s decision in Ventigan v. Brown, 9
Vet.App. 34, 36 (1996) (holding that the Board erred in applying 38 C .F .R. § 3 .
105 in finding that severance of VA benefits was proper, and that the Board should have
applied 38 U.S.C. § 5112(b)(9)), have on Mr . Roberts’s case?
The memoranda of law should be no longer than 25 pages in length and are
to be submitted by the parties within 21 days after the date of this order . The Court
also requests the participation of amici in this matter ; memoranda of law by interested amici should not exceed 25 pages in length and are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of this order . All memoranda should include copies of any legislative history or other authority referred to therein that is not available on electronic legal research databases such as Westlaw or LexisNexis.
ORDERED that oral argument is set for July 29, 2009, at 10 :00 AM in the
Courtroom ; the parties are allotted 30 minutes each for presentation of their arguments .
ORDERED that the parties submit memoranda of law, as described above,
within 21 days after the date of this order. It is further
ORDERED that the participation of amici is requested, and that interested
amici submit memoranda of law, as described above, within 30 days after the date of
Robert P. Walsh, Esq.