Brunette v. Wilkie


Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether the VA incorrectly discharged its responsibilities under 38 C.F.R. Section 3.156(c) with respect to taking the actions required upon reopening and reconsidering the hearing of the May, 1982 rating board that failed to consider material records showing a medical discharge awarded by the Army for service connected disabilities.” 2. “Whether material claims not made in 1982 that would be shown in a required prehearing physical and mental examination should be included in the reconsideration of the veteran’s claim.” 3. “Whether evidence bearing on issues material to the claims that arises after discharge and the ensuing VA rating board decision and before the reopening of and reconsideration of the claim must be considered by the board reconsidering the reopened board hearing.” 4. “Whether the VA is required to follow the rulings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in Pacheco v. Shinsecki. 26 Vet. App. 413 (201 4) and Mavhue v. Shinseki. 24 Vet.App.273, 279 (2011) which are the only two published opinions regarding the application and requirements of 38 C.F.R. 3.156(c).” 5. “Whether the VA is required to follow the rulings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Skoczen v. Shinseki. 564 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009) and Davidson v. Shinseki. 582 F. 3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) that the VA must give the same weight as any other witness to the testimony of the claimant and that any lay person, including the claimant, can testify as to ordinary medical conditions he is competent to diagnose or describe.” 6. “Whether the VA is required to follow its own regulation and rate lumbar and cervical disabilities on the basis of yearly prescribed bedrest rather than range of motion when the bedrest rating would exceed the range of motion rating under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. 4-41, Diagnostic Code 5243.” 7. “Whether the VA has to assign an effective date of March 25, 1982 to the corrected rating of the lumbar and cervical spine injuries.” 8. “Whether Patrick Brunette be rated as totally disabled by depression because he is a danger to himself and others.” 9. “Whether the BVA exceeded its authority by ordering remand of issues as to which the evidence before it in the C-File and brought to the attention of the board in the briefs and evidence and testimony submitted directly to the Board was clear and uncontroverted and supported each element of the claims.” 10. “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit violated Petitioner’s constitutional right to due process by failing to properly follow their own regulations regarding hearing and rehearing.” 11. “Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit must rule with specificity on each issue of law raised involving the application of statutes and regulations in matters involving mixed questions of law and fact.” 12. “Whether the VA criteria are met and unopposed for awards of Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) and Total Disability for Individual Unemployability (TDIU), making remand of these issues improper and unnecessary and requiring reversal of the AOJ ruling on these two points.”

Proceedings and Orders
August 22, 2019
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
October 7, 2019
Petition DENIED.