» Veterans Disability Benefits

Veteran wins seven-year case where VA claimed $13,000 debt

After a 7½ year battle, the Board of Veterans Appeals ruled in favor of veteran, Mr. Gregory Goskey. The August 2021 decision held the Seattle, Washington, Regional Office (RO), and a previous Board decision from January 2019, were wrong to find Mr. Goskey owed the VA more than $13,000. In February 2014, the VA sent Mr. Goskey a letter requesting he update the status of his dependents. On March 24, 2014, he returned the form noting a mistake. VA had his ex-wife on record. The updated form showed the veteran divorced K.G. in February 2005 and married V.G. in March 2005. The RO found he should’ve made that update in 2005. So he owed the VA $13,189.88. Thus, even though he had been lawfully married to V.G. for over nine years, the VA claimed a $13,000 overpayment to the veteran because they had the wrong dependent’s name on record. In his first appeal to the Board, Mr. Goskey explained that during the month of May 2005, he sent marriage and divorce documents to the VA at Tacoma, Washington, for the purpose of updating his dependent. He did not send the documents via certified mail and in hindsight realized he should have because Tacoma VA claims the documents were never received, leaving him with no proof he sent the documents but his word. In January 2019, the Board affirmed the ROs action, finding the preponderance of evidence showed Mr. Goskey first informed VA of his new marital status in the March 24, 2014, correspondence. Grubaugh Law entered the case at this point, representing the veteran in his appeal to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Pursuant to Rule 33, we filed a memorandum with CAVC and the Secretary of the VA, arguing the Board did not follow precedent. In a situation such as Mr. Goskey’s, the Board must explicitly engage in a credibility determination before finding the balance of evidence supports the VA position. The Secretary, through counsel, agreed with our filing and joined us in a motion to remand the case back to the Board of Veterans Appeals, which the CAVC granted. On remand, we wrote another brief arguing why the Board should believe Mr. Goskey, and assisted him in presenting testimony. After the hearing, the Board found in his favor, saying the balance of evidence suggests he did attempt to file an updated record of dependents in March 2005. So just an incredible result for the veteran. We at Grubaugh Law were happy we could help. Read More

Veteran wins eight-year old claim with Grubaugh Law

On April 21, 2021, the VA found a veteran was service-connected for a post-hysterectomy with status post oophorectomy, endometriosis, dyspareunia, with an effective date of May 24, 2013. The disability rating was 50%. She received a check for $90,910.78 of backpay, and will receive approximately $905 a month for the foreseeable future. When Grubaugh Law first received her case in 2019, her claim had been denied by the Board of Veterans and she was down to her last appeal. The Board had found there was no clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a prior VA denial of her claim. Pursuant to Rule 33, we filed a memorandum at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims arguing the Board should not have used the unforgiving CUE standard. Rather, the Board should have taken the veteran’s allegation of CUE as a notice of disagreement, and applied the more favorable presumptions veterans are entitled to. The Secretary of the VA, through counsel, agreed with our filing and remanded the case back to the Board of Veterans Appeals. On remand, we wrote another brief arguing that VA failed to assist the veteran, and the veteran submitted new and material evidence relevant to her claim. Agreeing with our arguments, the Board remanded the claim to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction in February 2020, ordering a new medical examination. The claim then bounced back and forth between the AOJ and the Board a few more times. After two medical examinations, VA finally agreed the veteran’s medical condition was service-connected. We at Grubaugh Law were ecstatic for this life-changing decision for the veteran! Read More

VA Benefits Case Remanded, Agent Orange Exposure

Appellant was attempting to reopen an old claim for a heart disability. He claimed he had been exposed to Agent Orange near the Korean demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in the early 1980s. The VA presumes servicemembers who serve at or near the Korean DMZ between September 1, 1967 and August 31, 1971 were exposed to herbicides. Since the veteran served outside this period, he had to show actual herbicide exposure for VA to award service-connection for his heart disability. The Board would not reopen his claim, finding Appellant had presented no new and material evidence of exposure to Agent Orange. CAVC agreed with my arguments, finding the Board errored when it did not consider the Appellant’s lay statements under the correct legal standard. His claim of actual herbicide exposure will be heard again by the Board, as he has another opportunity to make his case and potentially collect on his claim. Mem. Decision Read More

VA Benefits Case Remanded for Vet with Spinal and Knee Injuries

CAVC found the BVA erred in the veteran’s case when it placed the burden on him to show the VA examiner was qualified, and ordered the case remanded. CAVC also found the BVA should address two arguments raised on appeal, whether the spinal disabilities were secondarily related to the veteran’s knee disabilities, and whether VA adequately searched for all the relevant medical records. Read the CAVC’s opinion here. Read More

VA Benefits Case Remanded for Vet with Hearing Loss

The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) remanded the veteran’s case because the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) failed to discuss all relevant and material evidence in the case. Josh found evidence from medical records in 2015 that suggested the veteran’s hearing worsened sometime before a March 9, 2016, audiological test. The CAVC agreed with Josh’s arguments, and remanded the case to the BVA. The BVA must discuss this germane evidence it previously overlooked. The BVA must also make a ruling on whether a retrospective medical opinion is necessary to determine if the veteran is entitled to a compensable rating for a hearing disability before March 9, 2016. Read the CAVC’s opinion here. Read More