While I think it’s reasonable to assume that the holding in this appeal applies to AMA appeals, as well, but these days, it’s important to remember that is just my assumption.
One caveat before we get into the weeds: the appeal underlying this decision is a Legacy appeal. This decision, thankfully, stops the VA from requiring yet another form that serves no purpose other than cutting years off a veteran’s past due award. They have so many different forms that it’s a wonder that every veteran doesn’t get their own unique claim form. I wanted to name this post “It’s raining forms” because the VA loves their forms. There may be some useful information that we can use to improve our claims before the VA raters and the Board of Veterans Appeals. I don’t see how the issue in Wilson required anything more than a memorandum decision applying the holding of Bailey to the facts of Wilson.īut let’s dig in, nevertheless. With respect, I’m don’t see a novel issue: the only material difference between Bailey and Wilson is that the issue of secondary service connection of a condition that was logically related to the condition in another claim was raised in a VA Form 9 in Wilson, and elsewhere before the VA in Bailey. The Court said it was considering, in this case, a novel question: “whether, in similar procedural circumstances, Bailey’s holding extends to claims for secondary service connection expressly raised to the Board.” In doing so, the Court reminded the Secretary that when it came to the informal claim for service connection “…a separate formal claim is not necessary for VA to be required to recognize, develop, and adjudicate a claim for secondary service connection that is reasonably raised by the record during the course of adjudicating a formally initiated claim for a service connected disability.”
He is not permanently housebound by reason of his service-connected disabilities.In a January 26, 2022, panel decision, the Veterans Court reiterated its holding in Bailey v. The Veteran does not have the requisite combinations of loss of use or anatomical loss of feet, hands, legs, arms, blindness, deafness, or prosthesis for higher SMC ratings. The Veteran has additional service-connected cervicogenic headaches independently ratable at 50 percent resulting in SMC rated between (l) and (m), and PTSD independently ratable at 100 percent, resulting in SMC rated between (m) and (n).Ĥ.
He is entitled to SMC (l) for the need for aid and attendance as a result of his service-connected Parkinson's disease (and associated disabilities), bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy and limitation of motion of the left arm, cervical spondylosis, diabetes mellitus and associated bilateral extremity peripheral neuropathy. The Veteran is entitled to SMC (k) for loss of use of a creative organ. The Veteran has moderate incomplete paralysis of the long thoracic nerve.ģ. The Veteran's posttraumatic neuritis of the dorsal spine with radicular pain to the left chest associated with a shell fragment wound manifested in pain in the left chest area. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, he fractured his cervical spine (C2 compression fracture) as a result of a fall caused by a service-connected disability.Ģ.
0 kommentar(er)
