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.

Westfall v. McDonald

Westfall v. McDonald, docket no. 13-0575(E) (Apr. 28, 2015)

JUDGMENT, MANDATE, EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT (EAJA)

Held: A CAVC order granting “a motion to expedite the issuance of mandate does not, on its own, operate to shorten the time to appeal to the Federal Circuit . . . unless the parties have articulated in the motion, a clear and unequivocal waiver of their right to appeal.”

Click here for complete April  2015 Veterans Law Update.

Haynes v. McDonald

Haynes v. McDonald, 785 F.3d 614 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2015)

DIC, “SURVIVING SPOUSE” DEFINITION, “ABUSED SPOUSE” EXCEPTION

Held: In order to qualify for DIC benefits, there must be a valid marriage at the time of the veteran’s death and continuous cohabitation. The “abused spouse” exception to the continuous cohabitation requirement does not eliminate the requirement of a valid marriage at the time of death.

Click here for complete April  2015 Veterans Law Update.

Gray v. McDonald

Gray v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 313 (Apr. 23, 2015)

AGENT ORANGE, “INLAND WATERWAY,” DA NANG HARBOR

Held: VA’s interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), designating Da Nang Harbor as an offshore waterway, is irrational and inconsistent with the regulation’s purpose.

 

Click here for complete April  2015 Veterans Law Update.

Toomer v. McDonald

Toomer v. McDonald, 783 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 21, 2015)

EQUITABLE TOLLING, PRESUMPTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REGULARITY

Held: In order to warrant equitable tolling of the 120-day deadline to file an appeal with the Veterans Court, a claimant must show (1) that extraordinary circumstances prevented him/her from filing a timely appeal; (2) due diligence in his/her attempts to exercise appellate rights; and (3) that the extraordinary circumstances caused him/her to miss the deadline. 

Click here for complete April  2015 Veterans Law Update.