CCK CAVC Case Win: Earlier Effective Date for Veteran's Heart Disease
CCK CAVC Case Win: Earlier Effective Date for Veteran's Heart Disease
This Vietnam veteran sought CCK’s help in securing an earlier effective date for his service-connected coronary artery disease (CAD). After being exposed to Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides during his service, the veteran was diagnosed with CAD. When the Board of Veterans Appeals denied his claim for an earlier effective date, the veteran came to CCK. Tune in to learn more about how we argued this case, the CAVC appeal process, and the outcome.
Learn more about the effects of Agent Orange exposure: https://cck-law.com/veterans-law/what…
VA Ratings for Heart Disease: https://cck-law.com/types-of-va-disab…
Why Hire CCK for Your VA Disability Appeal? https://cck-law.com/why-hire-cck-for-…
Feel free to ask questions, give us feedback, or request new veterans’ law topics below! And don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE so you won’t miss future videos. Visit our website at cck-law.com or call (888) 559-1385.
0:00 Introduction
0:25 Background of the Case: Vietnam, Agent Orange
1:02 Veteran Files Initial VA Claim
1:53 Veteran Appeals Effective Date for Heart Condition to Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA)
2:52 CCK Takes Case to Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC)
3:50 Court Agrees with CCK’s Argument for Earlier Effective Date
Content
0.24 -> foreign
13.22 -> [Music]
14.22 -> case win for a veteran seeking an earlier
effective date for his service-connected
22.32 -> coronary artery disease or CAD this veteran served
on active duty from 1969 until 1971 and again from
30.36 -> 1972 until 1975 earning the Vietnam service medal
and the Vietnam campaign medal because he served
37.92 -> in Vietnam he was exposed to herbicides or
agent orange and was later diagnosed with
43.02 -> coronary artery disease or CAD in 2004. VA added
ischemic heart diseases which includes CAD to the
51.6 -> list of diseases entitled to presumptive service
connection based on herbicide exposure in 2010.
58.26 -> in June 2015 this veteran filed for an initial
claim for VA disability compensation based on
64.8 -> several conditions and explicitly on his form
he identified hypertension stroke and diabetes
71.52 -> shortly after though he submitted a statement
that discussed his CAD diagnosis and pointed
77.22 -> VA to look for additional medical records
that diagnosed cats he did not put cat on
82.8 -> the claim form even though regulations at the
time required the use of a form to file a claim
88.68 -> while VA was developing the claims for
hypertension stroke and diabetes the comp and
94.26 -> Pen examiner's diagnosis veteran with cat again
and so VA then gave him a cad specific CMT exam
102.06 -> this veteran then filed a new claim for disability
compensation based on a heart condition which was
107.52 -> granted and awarded an effective date in December
2017 when he filed that new claim but the veteran
114.72 -> felt that he was entitled to an even earlier
effective date for his heart condition based on
119.64 -> the 2015 claim that he filed listing hypertension
diabetes and stroke so he filed a notice of
126.24 -> disagreement which appealed the reigning decision
that gave him only a December 2017 effective date
132.18 -> VA actually did move the effective date a little
bit earlier based on that appeal to December 2016
138.42 -> but the veteran continued his appeal arguing that
he was entitled to the 2015 date ultimately the
147.6 -> board denied the earlier effective date so did not
put the effective date any earlier than December
153 -> 2016 because the veteran didn't list coronary
artery disease on that claim form and as Caitlyn
161.1 -> just said it is a requirement that when you file a
new claim you must file it and on a VA claim form
169.8 -> so cck took the case to court and actually
represented the veteran below at the board
176.76 -> as well and argued that the 2015 claim
form listing hypertension diabetes in
183.3 -> stroke actually included a claim for coronary
artery disease even though that diagnosis was
190.08 -> an explicitly listed on the form and we made
this argument based on the statements that the
196.08 -> veterans submitted shortly after submitting that
2015 claim form that made clear that it was his
201.9 -> reasonable expectation that VA would also look
at the potential connection between his coronary
207.72 -> artery disease and his service specifically
he described his coronary artery disease as an
215.64 -> issue issue associated with the explicitly claimed
conditions of diabetes stroke and hypertension and
222.66 -> directed VA to evidence showing that he had
been diagnosed with coronary artery disease
230.22 -> so when the case got to court the court actually
did a board inadequately considered our arguments
236.76 -> deliberately construed a veterans pleading
because when the board considered the veterans
241.74 -> claim it looked only to whether his claim form
his ssoc or his nod mentioned cat but didn't
249.12 -> address as whether the other information that
was submitted by the veteran or obtained by the
254.16 -> secretary included any conditions encompassed
by the claims that he included on the form
259.38 -> nor did the board consider whether or not the
symptoms of the claimed conditions overlapped
264.54 -> with the symptoms of CAD or whether they were part
of the same body system the court determined that
270.12 -> the board aired in failing to address our argument
that the 2015 claim remained remained pending and
275.94 -> unadjudicated because evidence establishing a cad
diagnosis was received while the 2015 claim was
282.12 -> pending and ultimately here the court set aside
the board's decision to deny an earlier effective
288 -> date and remanded the case back down to the board
and now of course on remand is veteran will be
293.34 -> able to submit additional arguments and evidence
as Allowed by law which the board must consider
301.74 -> Amy do we have any final thoughts on this case
is are there any takeaways that veterans at home
307.2 -> could take from this yeah I think the biggest
takeaway is that it's really important to list
312.84 -> everything on that claims form even if it seems
pretty obvious to you that VA should be making the
319.14 -> connection between the list a condition that you
have identified on the form and another condition
323.94 -> make sure you're listing that this veteran
has now had to fight VA for years trying to
329.7 -> get that earlier effective date and this problem
could have been avoided entirely if he had just
334.68 -> listed CAD on on the form I absolutely agree
Amy thanks everyone for watching be sure to
342.66 -> subscribe to our channel for more case wins
and other veteran related content [Music]
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNcw28NnacI