Paralyzed Veterans of America's (Paralyzed Veterans) attorneys have litigated hundreds of cases on behalf of members and other veterans, helping them receive the benefits they have earned. When veterans are denied benefits by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, they have a right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Our professional staff represents claimants in these courts and tracks legal issues that matter to veterans.

Paralyzed Veterans' Cases

Paralyzed Veterans’ attorneys represented the veteran in the recently decided case of  Boone v. Shinseki in the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  Since its decision in Henderson (see below), the Court has been struggling with jurisdictional issues such as the one presented by this case: Did a veteran file his appeal on time if he inadvertently filed it with VA instead of the Court, and then VA waited too long to send it to the Court?   While Paralyzed Veterans argued that there are legal reasons the veteran should be allowed to continue his appeal, the Court found in Boone and similar cases that the veteran had actually filed a motion for reconsideration with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.  This holding preserves a possible future appeal for the veteran but avoids other jurisdictional questions.

Read the Boone decision»

Read the Boone pleadings:
Memorandum»
Reply»

Listen to the oral argument»

Paralyzed Veterans’ attorneys have recently filed a brief with the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the case of Harris v. Shinseki. In this case, a Paralyzed Veterans member was granted a benefit by VA, only to have VA surreptitiously refuse to give effect to the award. Paralyzed Veterans is arguing that VA’s action is not permitted under any law or regulation and that the benefit should be given effect.

Read the Harris brief»

Hot Topics

Attorney Representation
In December 2006, a law was passed that allows veterans to retain counsel after they have filed a Notice of Disagreement. VA created regulations that govern attorney practice within the agency; these regulations require that attorneys be accredited by VA and attend a legal education course on VA claims and benefits.  Paralyzed Veterans believes all veterans should have quality representation and has been working to create training programs both to meet the VA’s requirements and to train attorneys who want to help veterans.  For example, Paralyzed Veterans has partnered with a major law firm, Howrey LLP, and in January we presented a qualified training program for Washington, DC, law firm attorneys who want to help veterans on a pro bono basis.

Read VA’s regulations»

Cases of Interest

The Supreme Court
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit have long struggled with how to determine when a VA error is prejudicial to a veteran. In the cases of Sanders v. Peake, M.D., and Simmons v. Peake, M.D., the Federal Circuit set the standard favorably to veterans. The VA appealed to the Supreme Court in 2008, and the Supreme Court recently decided that the Federal Circuit’s standard was incorrect and reversed the lower court’s decision.  While it remains to be seen how the lower courts will implement this decision, the Supreme Court case will likely make it more difficult for veterans to demonstrate that VA’s errors harmed them.

Read the Supreme Court decision»

Read the transcript of the oral argument at the Supreme Court»

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
The Court recently decided the case of Henderson v. Peake. The question before the Court was whether it can have jurisdiction over cases where a veteran files his or her Notice of Appeal (NOA) late because of a mental or physical disability. Some courts have permitted late filing in these circumstances under a theory of equitable tolling, but a recent Supreme Court decision, Bowles v. Russell, has made courts question whether such late filings may still be permitted. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that, based on the Supreme Court decision, Mr. Henderson’s appeal was not timely filed and therefore had to be dismissed.  Mr. Henderson has appealed to the Federal Circuit.

Read the CAVC’s decision»

Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit recently issued its decision in Haas v. Peake, M.D. The Court overturned a ruling of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that had found a VA legal interpretation unreasonable and, under the applicable law, that “Blue Water” veterans had service in Vietnam for the purpose of presuming exposure to Agent Orange. The Federal Circuit disagreed and found that VA’s interpretation, which excludes Blue Water veterans, was consistent with Congress’s intent. Therefore, only veterans who served “in” Vietnam are eligible for the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange.

Read the Federal Circuit’s decision in Haas»

Read Paralyzed Veterans' comments»

Publications

SOAR, the Service Officers Appeals Report, is a quarterly newsletter providing information on cases at the Board of Veterans' Appeals, Veterans Court, and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; opinions and rulemaking of the Department of Veterans Affairs; judicial review; and other issues of concern to Paralyzed Veterans service officers.

Read the latest issue of SOAR»