• Social Security Disability
• Veterans' Disability
• Long-Term Disability
• Personal Injury

Videos

Library

SSA & VA Federal Appeals

Filing a Federal appeal for Social Security Disability or Veterans' Compensation requires the claimant to follow specific procedures. Any deviation from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Rules of Practice and Procecure may result in a delayed claim or dismissed appeal. 

Hire an Experienced Federal Disability Attorney

Each year LaVan & Neidenberg files hundreds of Federal appeals to district courts across the country. The firm works with both attorneys and unrepresented claimants in filing the notice of appeal through writing the Memorandum of Law. Our attrorneys take pride in winning claims at the Federal level and having the claim remanded to the Social Security Administration or the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Soldiers can return from action with a number of conditions, injuries, and aggravated preexisting conditions. If you believe you have a service-connected physical or psychological injury you may be entitled to Veterans’ Compensation. At LaVan and Neidenberg, we are determined to secure veterans their rightful disability compensation and disability rating. We wrote this book for you! In it you will find valuable tips on how to navigate the claims process and avoid common pitfalls. Request your FREE copy today!

Blog for SSA & VA Federal Appeals

• CAVC Veteran Attorney Explains What the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is
• How do you Electronically File a Social Security Disability Federal Appeals?
• Should I appeal my Social Security Disability claim to Federal Court?
• Hire a Lawyer for a SSI/Disability Federal Appeal
• Federal SSA Disability Outcome

Library for SSA & VA Federal Appeals:

• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 8)   
  Description: A Hearing was held on July 13, 2004, concerning the claims of increased disability for the metatarsalgia of the right foot currently 10% disabling, and for service connection for low back pain secondary to the foot condition. On July 29, 2004 the RO issued a letter to the veteran that he was granted 10% disability for low back condition with radicular symptoms, secondary to service connected metarsalgia, right foot, assigned from March 8, 2001. The veteran’s combined rating was 20%
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 7)   
  Description: On May 2, 2003, the RO issued a Decision on the claim for low back condition secondary to metatarsalgia right foot stating that they had denied the claim since the service medical records did not show treatment or a diagnosed back condition during the veteran’s period of active military service (R. 708-715), and stating that an examiner of March 18, 2002, stated it was unlikely that the veteran’s low back condition was related to the veteran’s service connection right foot metatarsalgia.
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 6)   
  Description: On October 9, 2001, Dr. Peter Gorman of the Dept. Of Veterans Affairs, Maryland Health Care System, wrote that after reviewing the veteran’s medical records dated March 28, 1980 and May 6, 1980, in which the veteran complained of numbness of the toes of the right foot, that based on those two brief encounters during the veteran’s basic training period, it was certainly possible that the symptoms of the 1980’s and the symptoms of the late 1990’s were related.
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 5)   
  Description: The Statement of the Case stated service medical records showed treatment in 1980 for numbness in the right foot, diagnosed as slight nerve damage (Id.). It also stated that service records show that the veteran was placed at bed rest shortly after reporting for active duty for training in September, 1990 for an unspecified condition.
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 4)   
  Description: On April 2, 1997, the veteran underwent an examination for a miscellaneous neurological disorder. He told the examining doctor that his back began to hurt after a 25-mile hike in 1980 when he was in Basic Training (R. 1038-1039).
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 3)   
  Description: On March 11, 1991, the veteran was reassigned from Fort Pickett to St. Louis (R. 1094). On July 14, 1991, the veteran was ordered to report for Active Duty on July 14, 1991, for a period of 179 days (In Support of Operation Desert Storm/Shield) although it is unclear from the record whether the veteran reported for Active Duty (R. 1060).
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 2)   
  Description: The record shows that the veteran was relieved from the 275th Supply Company on May 15, 1981 (R1080), applied for Discharge from the Army according to a Dept. of the Army letter dated 03/21/85 (R. 1093), but then also served in Fort Gordon, Georgia from July 12, 1986 to July 26, 1986.
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 1)   
  Description: Appellant,(the veteran), appeals a March 31, 2008 decision of the Board of Veterans Appeals (“BVA” or “Board”) that denied the veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for stomach disorder; denied the veteran’s claim for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for metatarsalgia of the right foot; denied the claim for service connection for bilateral foot and leg disorders other than metatarsalgia of the right foot.
•   
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 14)   
  Description: This was legal error. The veteran had been receiving 10% disability for the right foot metatarsalgia, and now had been diagnosed with bilateral metatarsalgia which the examining physician from the VA stated was at least as likely as not due to the veteran’s service-connected foot metatarsalgia.
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 12)   
  Description: The Board Decision denying the veteran’s claim for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for metatarsalgia of the right foot and in denying the claim for service connection for bilateral foot and leg disorders other than metatarsalgia of the right foot is clearly erroneous.
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 11)   
• Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims Brief: BVA Denial of Servie Connection (Brief 1, p 10)   
  Description: The Board Decision denying the veteran’s claim for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for metatarsalgia of the right foot and in denying the claim for service connection for bilateral foot and leg disorders other than metatarsalgia of the right foot is clearly erroneous.
• Federal Social Security Brief: Appeals Council Disability Denial (Brief 1, p 15)   
  Description: These limitations, by 3 opinions in the record, preclude Claimant from performing the full range of medium work, as found by the courts in Welch, Walker, Marbury, and Jones, cited above.
• Federal Social Security Brief: Appeals Council Disability Denial (Brief 1, p 14)   
  Description: When a claimant cannot perform a full range of work at a given level of exertion or the claimant has non-exertional impairments that significantly limit basic work skills, exclusive reliance on the grids is inappropriate.
• Federal Social Security Brief: Appeals Council Disability Denial (Brief 1, p 13)   
  Description: The ALJ erred by not requiring the testimony of a Vocational Expert at the Hearing, although in his Decision finding Claimant not disabled, he relied upon the report of the post-Hearing consultative examiner who found Claimant limited in his ability to climb stairs and ramps, climb ladders or scaffolds, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, work at unprotected heights, work around moving mechanical parts, and operate a motor vehicle.
• Federal Social Security Brief: Appeals Council Disability Denial (Brief 1, p 12)   
  Description: Medical evidence exists in the record that the Claimant is more limited than the consultative examiner found, and more limited than the file-reviewing persons who completed the check-the-box forms found
• Federal Social Security Brief: Appeals Council Disability Denial (Brief 1, p 11)   
  Description: In Leik v. Barnhart, 296 F.Supp.2d 1345 (M.D.Fla. 2003), the ALJ denied the claimant’s request to cross-examine two nonexamining physicians and then preceded to rely upon the post-hearing responses to interrogatories sent to these experts in determining that the claimant did not meet or equal a listing and in assessing his RFC
• Federal Social Security Brief: Appeals Council Disability Denial (Brief 1, p 10)   
  Description: ARGUMENT
  The standard for review is whether the decision by the Administrative Law Judge is supported by substantial evidence and based upon proper legal standards. 42 U.S.C. §405(g); Walden v. Schweiker, 672 F.2d 835, 838 (11th Cir. 1982). The failure to apply correct legal standards or to provide sufficient basis for a determination that proper standards were applied is grounds for reversal. Lamb v. Bowen, 847 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1987).
• Federal Social Security Brief: Appeals Council Disability Denial (Brief 1, p 9)   
  Description: After the Hearing, on July 13, 2007, Claimant attended a Consultative Examination at the request of the Office of Disability Determinations (T222-234). The examiner stated in his Report that he was provided reports from Dr. Almaheed dated June 2006.

View All

Case Results for SSA & VA Federal Appeals:

• Federal Social Security Brief: Appeals Council Disability Denial (Brief 1, p 1)

Awarded: Confidential

• FEDERAL REMAND: ALJ Failed to Properly Evaluate if the Plaintiff Meet or Functionally Equals a Listing (Federal Case 3, p. 1)

Awarded: Confidential

• FEDERAL REMAND: ALJ Failed to Allow Testamony by the Plainitts Mother (Federal Case 2, p. 1)

Awarded: confidential

• FEDERAL REMAND: ALJ Failed to Provide Notice of New Medical Evidence to Plaintiff's Representative (Federal Case 1, p. 1)

Awarded: Confidential

Free Reports

Free Consultation

Petitions

Spotlights

Tampa

Palm Beach

Naples

Miami

Fort Lauderdale

Atlanta