Recent Paralyzed Veterans Cases
PVA’s Deputy General Counsel, Michael P. Horan will soon argue the case of Perez v. Shinseki to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. In this case, veteran Mr. Perez sought to change his veteran service organization representative while his case was on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. The Board, however, said he asked too late and refused to allow the change, so the result was that Mr. Perez effectively had no representative at the Board and his claim was denied. Mr. Horan has argued that the VA regulation that limits changes in representation is inconsistent with what Congress wants for veterans. A decision is expected sometime in 2012, so watch this space for updates. Read the supplemental authorities Another recent PVA case was Hornick v. Shinseki. In this case, a veteran who was injured in a VA facility was granted benefits under 38 U.S.C. 1151 based on the injury and the resulting disability. More than 10 years later, VA suddenly took away his benefits. Deputy General Counsel Michael Horan argued to the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that there was no legal basis for VA to do so. The Court agreed with Mr. Horan’s argument and held that veterans receiving benefits awarded under 1151 for ten years or more are entitled to the same protected status as any other veteran receiving service-connected benefits. This means that it won't be long before Mr. Hornick receives a retroactive disability compensation award from VA and also his monthly disability compensation payment restored. Additionally, Mr. Hornick can now receive the special adapted housing, automobile, and automobile adaptive equipment grants from VA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims recently decided Breniser v. Shinseki. In the Breniser case, PVA had argued that the veteran was entitled to an additional award of special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114(l), because his service-connected loss of use of both feet make him so helpless that he requires the regular aid and attendance of another person, which would have entitled him to additional awards of SMC under § 1114(l), (o) and (r)(1). The Veterans Court disagreed with this argument, but did agree that the VA should have considered whether Mr. Breniser was eligible for an award of SMC under § 1114(p). Listen to the Breniser argument
|
Paralyzed Veterans of America
801 Eighteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3517