Precedential Cases Won by Bergmann & Moore

Bergmann & Moore is proud to have won the following precedent-setting cases:

• Andrews v. McDonough, 34 Vet.App. 216 (2021)
  • Andrews v. McDonough reversed and awarded service connection in a claim for Hepatitis C where the evidence was sufficient for VA to grant service connection and further development by VA could only be for the purpose of developing evidence against the claim. Watch the case.
• Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 10 (2017)
  • Bankhead v. Shulkin holds overall that the presence of suicidal ideation by itself (whether accompanied by actual intent or not) warrants the assignment of at least a 70 percent rating for PTSD.
• Crews v. McDonough, 36 Vet.App. 67 (2023)
  • Crews v. McDonough holds that the retroactive-effective-date provisions of the Blue Water Navy Act are not limited to claims that were previously denied due to lack of exposure. Watch the case.
• Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet.App. 158 (2016)
  • Correia v. McDonald holds, that when possible, VA examinations involving the joints must include passive and action range of motion (in both weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing circumstances) and include testing of the opposite joint.
• Edwards v. McDonough, 36 Vet.App. 56 (2023)
  • Edwards v. McDonough holds that VA cannot just ignore evidence that a Veteran submits with their appeal. Watch the case.
• Grimes v. McDonough, 34 Vet.App. 84 (2021)
  • Grimes v. McDonough holds that the scope of the Veteran’s claim must be based upon a sympathetic reading of the Veteran’s description of their symptoms including “the evidence submitted and developed throughout the appeal.”
• Helmick v. McDonough, 34 Vet.App. 141 (2021)
  • Helmick v. McDonough holds that accrued benefits may be paid to a survivor who lent money to a Veteran or widow that was then used to pay for the expenses of the Veteran’s or widow’s last sickness and/or burial. Watch the case.
• Lile v. McDonough, 37 Vet.App. 140 (2024)
  • Lile held that, while VA is bound by a service department’s act of voiding an enlistment as well as its determination of the dates of a person’s entry and separation, VA must conduct an independent assessment of whether a claimant subject to a voided enlistment is eligible for VA benefits under 38 C.F.R. § 3.14. Watch the case.
• Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet.App. 249 (2020)
  • Miller v. Wilkie holds that a VA medical examination that fails to consider the Veteran’s lay statements is inadequate and requires a new examination. Watch the case.
• Spigner v. McDonough, __ Vet.App. ___ (2024); 2024 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1992 (Nov. 7, 2024).
  • Spigner held that if the Board sua sponte reschedules a hearing under the AMA and the veteran submits evidence within the 90-day window after the originally scheduled date, then that evidence is properly before the Board for consideration. Watch the case.
• Ventris v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 300 (2021)
  • Ventris v. McDonough holds that a surviving spouse who remarried after the Veteran’s death and whose subsequent remarriage(s) were terminated in divorce and who filed a claim for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), is not barred from eligibility for DIC benefits.