As most of us living in the US today realize, there is a big difference between what the law says and how it works. Not because that is what the law SAYS, but because that is how the law WORKS. I’ve written about this rule before, and my theory is that if you are arguing for the application of the benefit of the doubt rule, you have already lost on the facts. The VA benefit of the doubt rule is found in 38 U.S.C. It is that finding which was the catalyst for appeal. Lynch was not entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) disagreed, finding that because the “preponderance of the evidence is against” a higher rating, Mr. He appealed the VA Rating Decision to the BVA, arguing that he was entitled to a rating higher than 30-percent because his PTSD symptoms were more severe. The facts of this case are straightforward.Ī veteran claimed service connection for PTSD, and was awarded a 30-percent impairment rating.

To get an understanding of what happened in this case, we’ll look at the facts of the appeal, what the Federal Circuit decided about the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, and what is left of the rule going forward. The cases with “en banc” decisions carry substantial precedential value. It’s a big deal, with big implications to veterans claims up and down the VA Claims and appeals process. When a court sits “en banc,” it means that the entire court sits to hear the issue raised on appeal – and not the typical 3-judge panel. In late December 2021, the Federal Circuit issued the rare “en banc” decision, addressing the legal standard for review of the BVA’s application of the VA benefit of the doubt rule.

Va bva decisions