Caring. Effective. Efficient.

» Judge Joseph L. Toth

PRECEDENTIAL CAVC CASE ALERT: Martinez v. Wilkie (17-1551)(38 USC 5103A, the Duty to Assist and C&P Opinions)

What is the Deep Issue in the Case? This case had two issues: one statutory and the other constitutional. Issue#1: 38 U.S.C. §5103A(a)(1) requires the Secretary “assist a claimant in obtaining evidence to substantiate the claim.” The… Read More
Read More

Does the VA Duty to Assist require giving to veterans a copy of their C&P opinions?

One of our clients’ cases, Martinez v. Wilkie, No 17-1551, was recently set for a panel decision by the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).We are not yet sure if there will be supplemental briefing or oral argument at this time. I… Read More
Read More

Coffee w/Chris: Is there enough air in your law firm's tires? (11-19-2018)

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&n… Read More
Read More

CAVC Docket Update: Appeals Submitted for CAVC Panel Decision and Oral Argument (June 2018)

In June 2018, it appears that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has set 1 case for Panel Decisions and 4 cases for Oral Argument and Panel Decision.  I do my best to seek out and find all cases submitted to a CAVC Panel or set for Oral… Read More
Read More

Case Review: #16-3564, Gerhardson v. Shulkin (Can Inadequate Opinion make Inadequate Reasons and Bases harmless error)

What is the Deep Issue in the Case? {Several issues were raised in the briefing of this case – this review focuses in on one: the CAVC harmless error rule.} When the BVA issues a remand order, the veteran or surviving spouse is entitled to subs… Read More
Read More

Case Review: 16-3392, Edmunds v. Shulkin (Lay Evidence & VA Exam Adequacy)

What is the Deep Issue in the Case? Medical examiners are not required to discuss every piece of favorable evidence or provide reasons or bases. Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97 (2012) The veteran testified that he had pain related to 2 current… Read More
Read More

Recent Cases

This case involves the special, and very powerful, Nehmer effective date rules.  Mr. Greene, the veteran, sought an effective date for his service connected coronary artery disease. He argued his effective date should go back to 2006, the first clai… Read More
This case involves the BVA’s rejection of a theory of service connection by aggravation for a back condition. The BVA refused to service connect the veteran’s back injury, which he argued was aggravated by service-connected knee and hip i… Read More
  This case involves a veteran who served in the Air Force from 1953 to 1957. During service, he injured his back on a flight line, and has repeatedly tried to service connect the injury since leaving service in 1957. Each time, the claim was de… Read More

See More Appellate Results

VA Form 21 Blog

Sep
30
Earlier this year, I tested an idea – what if a group of lawyers grabbed a virtual cup of coffee every Monday morning and chatted about their progress building a profitable law firm that prioritizes the attorney’s well being? Thos… Read More
Sep
6
If you hear the phrase, lawyers with a purpose, what is your immediate reaction? Do you roll your eyes? Yawn? Close this page and find something else to read? I’ll be honest, the first time a business coach told me that my law practice… Read More

Read the VA Form 21 Blog