This appeal involved both the effective date and the evaluation assigned for a digestive disability. The Board had granted a 30 percent rating from a particular point but denied an earlier effective date and a higher rating. I examined the filing history, the medical evidence, and arguments that had not received an adequate response.
Listening and reconstructing the appeal
I listened to my client and reviewed the sequence of claims and agency decisions. The Board’s effective-date analysis turned in part on whether the claim had been continuously pursued and on the type of form used. The record also contained a supplemental claim that expressly identified an earlier rating decision.
Separately, the client had submitted written challenges to VA examinations and arguments concerning symptoms and an alternative diagnostic code. I compared those submissions with the Board’s analysis. Reports about digestive symptoms and their effects on daily activities and work also required careful review.
A legal memo with distinct arguments
I drafted a legal memo separating the effective-date question from the rating issues. For the filing question, the joint motion addressed Chisholm v. Collins, which concerned a supplemental claim submitted on a form prescribed by the Secretary rather than necessarily on the designated supplemental-claim form. The Board also needed to address the significance of the supplemental claim already in the record.
For the rating issue, I identified the examination objections and symptom-related arguments the Board had not adequately addressed. The motion further required consideration of whether the record reasonably raised TDIU. On that last point, the Secretary did not concede error, even though the parties agreed the Board should address the issue on remand. That distinction is part of an accurate account of the advocacy.
The partial-remand victory
I secured a CAVC partial remand concerning the denied earlier effective date and higher rating. The favorable portion of the Board’s decision was to remain undisturbed. The remand provided a route for the omitted arguments and filing-history issues to receive further consideration.
The result did not itself award an earlier date, a higher percentage, or TDIU. It required a new adjudication that addressed the problems identified in the appeal.
Why a complete review matters
A claim’s history can matter as much as the latest examination. This case required attention to forms, prior decisions, written objections, and the effects of the disability. Bringing those strands into a legal memo allowed me to pursue a remedy that addressed the actual scope of the dispute.
Discuss your Board appeal
I represent veterans and their families at the CAVC. Learn about my appellate representation or request a free Board decision review.
For more about this issue, read our related appeal guide. The ordinary Court filing deadline is 120 days after notice of the Board decision is issued. Contacting a law firm does not extend that deadline.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. A remand requires further proceedings and does not itself award benefits.
