Our Blog Has Moved

For more recent Veterans' Case Law Blogs, click here.

Scott v. McDonald

Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2015)

ISSUE EXHAUSTION; PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Held: “[T]he Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board or the Veterans Court to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”

 

Click here for complete June  2015 Veterans Law Update.

Delisle v. McDonald

Delisle v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. June 18, 2015)

JURISDICTION; RATING KNEE CONDITIONS

Held: The Federal Circuit cannot review the CAVC’s application of law to fact. In dicta, the Court found that the plain language of Diagnostic Code 5257 is not a “catch-all,” but rather that it provides compensation for knee conditions that are not listed in other DCs and that cause recurrent subluxation or lateral instability. 

 

Click here for complete June  2015 Veterans Law Update.

Smith v. McDonald

Smith v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2015)

38 C.F.R. § 3.103, COURT NOT REQUIRED TO GRANT JMR

Held: The Court is not required to automatically grant a joint motion for remand (JMR) – and its failure to do so does not conflict with the ruling in Nat’l Org. of Veterans Advocates, Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 725 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2013), that required VA “to identify and rectify harms caused by its wrongful application of a former version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.103.” 

Click here for complete June  2015 Veterans Law Update.

Froio v. McDonald

Froio v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 352 (May 29, 2015)

EAJA FEES FOR LAW STUDENTS

Held: EAJA fees are allowed for work performed by law students as part of a legal clinic setting.

Click here for complete May 2015 Veterans Law Update.

Wingard v. McDonald

Wingard v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 329 (May 8, 2015)

0% RATING; COURT CANNOT REVIEW CONTENT OF RATING SCHEDULE

Held: The CAVC is bound by the Federal Circuit’s determination that the Court is statutorily precluded from determining whether the inclusion of a 0% rating in the schedule “substantially violates statutory constraints.”

Click here for complete May 2015 Veterans Law Update.