BVA Case 23-2327: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · March 29,2024 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
March 29,2024
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackCervicalHip

Why It Was Decided This Way

January 2019 and May 2021 Board Decisions In a January 2019 decision, the Board denied entitlement to recognition of the veteran's son as a helpless child of the veteran � for reasons other than whether Paul met the factors under 38 C.

Modrowski appealed to this Court,and in a June 2020 memorandum decision,the Court vacated the Board's decision and remanded the matter for readjudication, explaining that the Board had erred when it found the claim for recognition moot and failed to consider whether Paul met the factors under 3.

Modrowski appealed the May 2021 Board decision to this Court,and in a September 2022 memorandum decision,the Court vacated the Board decision and remanded the matter, accepting the Secretary's concession that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for finding that Paul would be able to maintain employment in a supportive environment but not finding what constitutes a supportive environment.

The Court noted that it was unclear whether the Board had found that Paul was capable of self-support at the age of 18 because he had returned to a normal education environment after 1980 and attained a GED and associate of arts degree by the age of 18,or whether the Board found he was incapable of self-support at age 18,but the incapacity was not permanent because he had the capacity for employment in March 2011.

Further,the Court found that the Board failed to explain why it discounted potentially favorable 4 evidence that Paul did not have the capacity for self-support by age 18,including the 1989 report by Dr.

March 2023 Board Decision In the March 2023 decision on appeal,the Board noted that in January 2023,the Board had informed the veteran that the Board member who conducted the April 2015 hearing was no longer working for the Board and the Board offered the veteran the opportunity for a new hearing.

The Board noted that the veteran had not responded to the offer and was deemed to have waived a new Board hearing.

The Board noted that to establish helpless child status,that status must have been attained before the child turned 18.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownCaluza v. BrownDeloach v. ShinsekiDyment v. PrincipiDyment v. WestEuzebio v. McFletcher v. DerwinskiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGutierrez v. PrincipiKutscherousky v. WestModrowski v. McPerez v. DerwinskiSee Abernathy v. PrincipiSee Dobson v. BrownSee Hensley v. WestSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Simmons v. WilkieSee Tucker v. WestStegall v. West

Denial Type

Credibility|Duty To Assist

Find Similar Precedent for Your Claim

VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.

Run my claim through VetAid →