Caring. Effective. Efficient.

BVA failed to address favorable opinion for service connection of a hip disability

BVA failed to address favorable opinion for service connection of a hip disability

(December 5, 2016) This case involves a BVA denial of service connection of a hip disability.

Because the  Office of General Counsel did not agree there was remandable error in regards to the BVA's failure to grant service connection of a hip disability, this appeal was fully briefed to the CAVC.

After the briefs, CAVC Judge Kasold wrote a single judge decision finding that when it denied service connection of a hip disability, the BVA erred when it failed to consider or discuss an April 2012 private medical opinion that the veteran's in-service duties likely caused his current hip disability.

The BVA must correctly apply the law, provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determinations. Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369 (1998). To be adequate, a BVA decision must  enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for its decision, as well as to facilitate review in the CAVC. Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517 (1995) 

The CAVC vacated the BVA decision and remanded it back to the BVA to consider the evidence it overlooked in the veteran's claim for service connection of a hip disability.

Does this case sound like your VA Rating Decision or BVA Decision? If so, click here to have  Attig | Steel take a look at your case.

Link to the BVA Decision on CAVC Website.

Link to the CAVC Memorandum Decision

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Brent A. Bowker

Veteran Representation at CAVC: Chris Attig (link to bio)

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Judge:Judge Bruce E. Kasold (link to bio)

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge: L.M. Barnard

Regional Office: Little Rock, Arkansas, VA Regional Office

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A. 

Date of BVA Decision: October 23, 2014

Date of CAVC Judgment on Remand:  December 5, 2016

Recent Cases

(April 18, 2018) The law firm of Hill and Ponton approached Attig | Steel after the BVA judge denied their veteran a higher 70 percent PTSD rating. They had put a lot of work and energy into helping a veteran, and the BVA decision seemed to gloss ove… Read More
(April 6, 2018) The veteran in this case served in the Navy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, including deployment to Kuwait. Upon his return stateside, after attempts to reintegrate to civilian life, he began to have family and other problems.… Read More
(February 14, 2018) Attorney Chris Attig has been working with this veteran’s survivor for half a decade to get her DIC and survivor’s accrued benefits properly awarded.  The veteran was a 3 decade military veteran, who fought not only i… Read More

See More Appellate Results

VA Form 21 Blog

Today’s video starts off with an overview of a recent precedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the case of Moody v. Wilkie, Cause No. 16-1707. Click here to read the CAVC’s panel decision in Moody v. Wi… Read More
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? 38 U.S.C. §7107(b) (2012) requires “[t]he Board shall decide any appeal only after affording the appellant an opportunity for a hearing.”  On remand from the Veterans Court, the veteran asked for a new BVA he… Read More

Read the VA Form 21 Blog