Recently in Health Law Category

In a dispute over a denial of disability benefits, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims judgment is affirmed where the absence of a right to confrontation with the Veterans Health Administration ophthalmologist was not prejudicial to plaintiff's claim as there was no evidence of record that established an actual causal nexus between plaintiff's in-service injury and his cataracts.      

Read Gambill v. Shinseki, No. 08-7120

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided August 13, 2009

Judges
Before BRYSON, LINN, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.
Per Curium Opinion.
Concurring opinions by Circuit Judge BRYSON and Circuit Judge MOORE.

Counsel
For Appellant: Michael A. Morin, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., Washington, DC.

For Appellee: Harold D. Lester, Jr., United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims judgment denying claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is affirmed where: 1) the regional office appropriately issued a supplemental statement of the case on remand in denying plaintiff's claim for service connection; 2) the Board did not exceed its jurisdiction by affirming that ruling; and 3) there was no merit to plaintiff's claim that the notice he received was inadequate under 38 U.S.C. sec. 5104(a) or 38 C.F.R. sec. 3.103(b)(1).     

Read Sims v. Shinseki, No. 08-7082

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided August 13, 2009

Judges
Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and DYK, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by DYK, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Kenneth M. Carpenter, Carpenter, Chartered, Topeka, Kansas.

For Appellee: Tara J. Kilfoyle, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.  

In a dispute involving a veteran's service-connected disability claim, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims judgment is reversed where: 1) a veteran alleging a service-connected disability has a due process right to have his claim for veteran's disability benefits decided according to fundamentally fair procedures; and 2) plaintiff's due process right to a fair hearing was violated by the consideration of tainted medical evidence.  

Read Cushman v. Shinseki, No. 08-7129

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Decided August 12, 2009

Judges
Before SCHALL, PLAGER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by PROST, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Kevin A. Calia, Morrison & Foerster LLP, of San Francisco, California.

For Appellee: Martin F. Hockey, Jr., United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 

In an action involving the appropriate disability rating for a veteran, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims' judgment upholding the finding that plaintiff's disorders had properly been rated together is affirmed where 38 C.F.R. sec. 4.14 prohibits separately rating the same symptoms merely because those symptoms have multiple causes. 

Read Amberman v. Shinseki, No. 08-7111

Appellate Information
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Decided June 29, 2009

Judges
Before LOURIE, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: Kenneth M. Carpenter, Carpenter, Chartered, Topeka, Kansas.

For Respondent: L. Misha Preheim, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

In a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, the denial of the petition is reversed where the special master erroneously: 1) determined that the testimony of Petitioner's physicians was insufficient to establish "a logical sequence of cause and effect" leading to Petitioner's vaccine-related injury; and 2) imposed upon Petitioner an elevated evidentiary burden, requiring conclusive proof in the medical literature linking Petitioner's symptoms to the vaccine at issue.

Read the full decision in Andreu v. Sec'y. of Health & Human Servs., No. 2008-5184.

Appellate Information:

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in case 98-VV-817, Senior Judge James F. Merow.

DECIDED on June 18, 2009

Judges:

Before NEWMAN, MAYER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

Opinoin by MAYER, Circuit Judge.

Counsel:

Clifford J. Shoemaker, Shoemaker and Associates, of Vienna, Virginia, argued for petitioners-appellants.

Darryl R. Wishard, Trial Attorney, Torts Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. With him on the brief were Timothy P. Garren, Director, Vincent J. Matanoski, Acting Deputy Director, and Catharine E. Reeves, Assistant Director.