Remands and wins before CAVC

10/2/20261 min read

10/2/26 - We are proud to share an important milestone for our firm: our first remand before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC).

The case involved a veteran whose claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disability had been denied by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. On appeal, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs agreed that remand was warranted because of errors in both the Board’s legal analysis and its treatment of the medical evidence.

One key issue was the Board’s treatment of the veteran’s congenital amblyopia. The Board analyzed the condition as a congenital “defect” without first determining whether it was actually a congenital defect or a congenital disease. That distinction matters because different legal standards apply. A congenital disease may potentially be service connected through aggravation, while a congenital defect is generally analyzed under the separate “superimposed disease or injury” framework.

The Board also mischaracterized the December 2021 VA examiner’s opinion. The examiner addressed aggravation, but the Board treated the opinion as though it addressed whether a superimposed in-service injury had occurred. In addition, the examiner’s rationale focused largely on when amblyopia typically develops, rather than whether the veteran’s preexisting condition worsened during service.

This case is a good example of why every Board decision and VA medical opinion should be reviewed carefully. A denial may appear supported on its face, but closer review can reveal that the Board applied the wrong legal standard, misunderstood the medical evidence, or relied on an inadequate examination.

Experienced counsel before the CAVC can help identify these errors and present them in a way that gives the veteran the best opportunity for meaningful review.

A remand is not a final award of benefits but it requires the Board to reconsider the claim and address the identified errors under the correct legal framework.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case depends on its individual facts and circumstances.