Reliford v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 297 (Mar.
20, 2015)
SUBSTITUTION, ACCRUED BENEFITS
Held: VA is required to notify an accrued
benefits claimant of the right to waive substitution.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Palomer v. McDonald
Palomer v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 245
(order) (Mar. 18, 2015)
EQUITABLE TOLLING
Held: The finality of a Board decision may be
abated even when an appellant files a motion for Board reconsideration after
the expiration of the 120-day appeal period – as long as the circumstances
warrant equitable tolling. In this case, however, the Court found that the
circumstances did NOT warrant equitable tolling.)
Rickett v. McDonald
Rickett v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 240 (en
banc order) (Mar. 10, 2015)
TREATMENT OF APPEAL
WHEN APPELLANT DIES PRIOR TO DECISION
Held: When an appellant dies during the
pendancy of an appeal and no one seeks to substitute for the deceased
appellant, “the Court will withdraw its orders disposing of substantive matters
in the case that were issued after the appellant’s death.”
Wingard v. McDonald
Wingard v. McDonald, 779 F.3d 1354 (Fed.
Cir. Mar. 10, 2015)
38 U.S.C. § 7252(b);
REVIEW OF VA’S RATING SCHEDULE
Held: 38 U.S.C. § 7252(b) precludes CAVC
review of challenges to the content of VA’s rating schedule. The Federal
Circuit, in turn, is precluded from reviewing the CAVC’s refusal to review a
challenge to the rating schedule.
Dixon v. McDonald
Dixon v. McDonald, 778 F.3d 1339 (Feb.
20, 2015)
GARNISHMENT OF VA
BENEFITS FOR CHILD/SPOUSAL SUPPORT
Held: In order for VA to garnish a veteran’s
benefits in fulfillment of a support order, a garnishment order or similar
legal process must be served on VA, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 659(i)(5).
Pederson v. McDonald
Pederson v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 276 (en
banc) (Feb. 13, 2015)
CAVC JURISDICTION TO
REVIEW ABANDONED ISSUES; TDIU
Held: “[T]he Court retains jurisdiction over
all finally decided issues [in a Board decision], regardless of whether the
[Notice of Appeal] itself or the subsequent briefing narrows the issues on
appeal.” However, the Court “will generally decline to exercise its authority to address an issue not raised
by an appellant in his or her opening brief.” For purposes of a subsequent CUE
challenge, the body of the Court’s decision must be reviewed to determine
“whether the issue was reviewed by the Court on the merits.” With respect to
TDIU, the burden is on the claimant to show that his/her education and
experience would preclude substantially gainful sedentary employment, and the
Board must consider all relevant evidence, including the effect of the
claimant’s nonservice-connected conditions on employability. NOTE: This case
was appealed to the Federal Circuit April 30, 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)