After I filed my client’s opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the Secretary agreed that the Board had failed to correct an error involving identified Social Security records. The parties filed a joint motion for remand, and the Court granted it. The result required further proceedings on my client’s psychiatric-disability claim; it did not itself award benefits.
The case shows why a careful Court appeal looks beyond the conclusion of a Board decision. Sometimes the problem is what VA failed to develop before deciding the claim.
What did the record show?
The record contained references to an application for Social Security benefits and a later report of disability income. Those references mattered because they raised a concrete question about records outside the VA claims file: had VA fulfilled its responsibility to assist with the identified Social Security records?
My opening brief challenged the Board’s conclusion that VA had satisfied its duty to assist. I argued that VA had neither requested the Social Security records nor provided the required notice that those records remained outstanding.
That argument required connecting the references in the record to the development VA had actually performed. It was not enough to say that additional records might exist. The appeal identified the records at issue and explained the defect in VA’s handling of them.
What did the Secretary concede after briefing?
I filed the opening brief on August 10, 2026. On October 6, the parties filed a joint motion acknowledging that the agency had not satisfied its duty to assist concerning the identified Social Security records before the decision on appeal.
The motion also recognized the Board’s error: it had failed to correct that development problem by remanding the claim. The agreed remedy called for the Board to return the issue to the agency of original jurisdiction for assistance concerning those records under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159, through the remand procedure in § 20.802(a).
The concession was specific. My brief also challenged the handling of service-record development and the Board’s explanation of the evidence concerning psychiatric diagnoses and treatment. The joint motion did not concede every argument. It acknowledged a records-development error that supported returning the claim for further proceedings.
What did the Court order?
On October 13, 2026, the Court granted the joint motion and remanded the matter for action consistent with its terms. The order also served as the Court’s mandate.
The joint motion called for the motion, my client’s brief and the Court’s order to be incorporated into the record. It also required adequate reasons or bases in a subsequent Board decision and expeditious treatment of the remanded claim.
This was a meaningful procedural result. The claim had to return for the development identified in the agreement. The Court did not decide that service connection must be granted, establish a disability rating or award back pay.
Why does this matter when reviewing a Board denial?
A reference to outside records can be easy to overlook in a lengthy file. But an appeal may turn on whether VA followed through on information already before it, and whether the Board addressed an unresolved development obligation.
Every case requires its own analysis. A reference to Social Security benefits does not automatically establish an appealable error or guarantee a remand. The records identified, their potential relevance, the development history and the procedural posture all matter.
In this appeal, I carried the records issue into a full opening brief. The Secretary’s subsequent concession addressed that issue, and the Court ordered the agreed remand. That is the work behind the result: examining the file, identifying the error and presenting a focused argument for relief.
Discuss your Board decision
I represent veterans nationwide in appeals to the CAVC. Read about missing records and VA’s duty to assist, learn what a joint motion for remand means, or request a free Board decision review.
Check the CAVC filing deadline promptly. Contacting a law firm does not file an appeal or extend a deadline.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. A remand requires further proceedings and does not itself award benefits. This article provides general information, not advice about an individual claim.
