My client’s psychiatric-disability claim was denied after the record had identified Social Security disability-related information. The agency had not fulfilled its duty to assist concerning those records, and the Board had not returned the claim to correct that problem. I pursued an appeal focused on the missing development.
Listening and identifying the leads in the file
I listened to my client and reviewed the record for evidence bearing on the denied claim. The file contained a statement referring to an application for Social Security benefits and a later VA entry reporting disability income. Those entries were relevant leads concerning records that had not been properly developed.
I reviewed those references in the context of the agency decision and the Board’s subsequent adjudication. In a modernized appeal, the timing of a duty-to-assist error matters. The issue was whether the agency had satisfied its obligation before the decision on appeal and whether the Board had properly addressed that failure.
A legal memo connecting the omission to the remedy
I drafted a legal memo explaining the development error under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 and the Board’s responsibility under 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). The argument identified the records-related information already available and the corrective action that had not occurred.
The appeal did not claim that receipt of Social Security benefits automatically established entitlement to VA benefits. The two systems use different standards. The point was that VA had to satisfy the applicable development obligations rather than decide the claim without addressing the identified records.
By connecting the record references to the procedural timeline, the memo presented a specific duty-to-assist argument rather than a general request to search for anything that might exist.
The remand win
I won a CAVC remand of the psychiatric-disability service-connection matter. The joint motion called for the Board to remand the issue to the agency for assistance concerning the identified Social Security records.
That was a victory in correcting the adjudication process. It did not itself establish service connection or determine the ultimate weight of the records. The claim required further proceedings after the development issue was addressed.
Following a reference can change an appeal
A short statement in a large record can identify an important source of evidence. Listening to the client, reading those references closely, and checking whether VA followed through allowed me to develop the legal argument that supported the remand.
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.
