Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

this is such a bunch of trash. They took the one good witness at the hearing, the OGC attorney, and ignored what she said and cut her off. She tried to explain that often OGC negotiates these JMRs, they are NOT findings of inadequacy by the Court, but rather agreed upon resolutions for a variety of reasons. In some decisions of course the errors are clear, because decisions are written by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes, but in many cases the errors are not clear, and amount to a matter of interpretation and, again, horse trading with the private bar. Anyone who has actually done the work knows this.

According to the Government Accountability Office, "in instances where VA and the claimant agree to a JMR, it generally involves acknowledgement that VA made a factual or legal error in its decision or that additional information is needed before making a final decision." While I understand that everyone makes mistakes, it is rather egregious that 80 percent of BVA decisions are being remanded. That means, 8 out of 10 BVA decisions contain errors or were based on a legally insufficient record. Isn't that shocking? It is for me, and I hope that Congress can address it.

it most certainly does not mean that 8 out of 10 decisions contain errors.

This only refers to cases that are appealed from BVA. Are there statistics showing what percentage of decisions are actually appealed?

I also do not agree with GAO's characterization of a JMR. It is a negotiated agreement between counsel. Sometimes they are done becuause the BVA decision contains a clear error. Sometimes they are done for strategic reasons to avoid making "bad law" at the Court. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorney has a difference of opinion with the VLJ who signed the decision. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorneys are overworked. There are many explanations as to why there could be a JMR following a BVA decision.. It is incorrect to conclude that every JMR means that a clear error was made.

This is correct.

I can say, as a Board attorney, I have seen many JMRs that are actually citing incorrect facts based on the misunderstanding of the record. People who don't work as attorneys at the Board really have no clue.

Board attorneys have to review three case files a week and pump out three decisions. Each case file contains anywhere from 200 to over 1000+ pages of medical records and evidence. I understand that BVA attorneys are excellent at doc review given that so many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. But at that speed, I’m not surprised that BVA attorneys make so many mistakes. I suggest learning from your mistakes rather than trying to shift the blame by accusing OGC of misstating the record.

I was not shifting blame. EVERYONE makes mistakes, that is the point. People, like you, only want to focus on one group of people and ignore another. And let's not forget the CAVC also makes mistakes because they are CONSISTENTLY reversed by the Federal Circuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like Congress is considering legislation to address the error riddled decisions that BVA attorneys and judges regularly pump out. Apparently, members of Congress aren’t thrilled that approximately 80 percent of BVA decisions are remanded back to BVA due to errors of law and fact and insufficient legal analysis.

https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/04/va-claims-appeal-board-errors-target-new-house-bill/395658/

this is such a bunch of trash. They took the one good witness at the hearing, the OGC attorney, and ignored what she said and cut her off. She tried to explain that often OGC negotiates these JMRs, they are NOT findings of inadequacy by the Court, but rather agreed upon resolutions for a variety of reasons. In some decisions of course the errors are clear, because decisions are written by humans and humans sometimes make mistakes, but in many cases the errors are not clear, and amount to a matter of interpretation and, again, horse trading with the private bar. Anyone who has actually done the work knows this.

According to the Government Accountability Office, "in instances where VA and the claimant agree to a JMR, it generally involves acknowledgement that VA made a factual or legal error in its decision or that additional information is needed before making a final decision." While I understand that everyone makes mistakes, it is rather egregious that 80 percent of BVA decisions are being remanded. That means, 8 out of 10 BVA decisions contain errors or were based on a legally insufficient record. Isn't that shocking? It is for me, and I hope that Congress can address it.

it most certainly does not mean that 8 out of 10 decisions contain errors.

This only refers to cases that are appealed from BVA. Are there statistics showing what percentage of decisions are actually appealed?

I also do not agree with GAO's characterization of a JMR. It is a negotiated agreement between counsel. Sometimes they are done becuause the BVA decision contains a clear error. Sometimes they are done for strategic reasons to avoid making "bad law" at the Court. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorney has a difference of opinion with the VLJ who signed the decision. Sometimes they are done because the OGC attorneys are overworked. There are many explanations as to why there could be a JMR following a BVA decision.. It is incorrect to conclude that every JMR means that a clear error was made.

This is correct.

I can say, as a Board attorney, I have seen many JMRs that are actually citing incorrect facts based on the misunderstanding of the record. People who don't work as attorneys at the Board really have no clue.

Board attorneys have to review three case files a week and pump out three decisions. Each case file contains anywhere from 200 to over 1000+ pages of medical records and evidence. I understand that BVA attorneys are excellent at doc review given that so many BVA attorneys are former doc reviewers. But at that speed, I’m not surprised that BVA attorneys make so many mistakes. I suggest learning from your mistakes rather than trying to shift the blame by accusing OGC of misstating the record.

Are you the same person in these posts that does nothing but complain about something that you have no control over? Move on.

[Anonymous]

I would warn potential hires against moving to take a job at the Board. This is no ordinary federal job. Attrition is very high. More so than other jobs, no one here cares about you as a person. If you get a bad judge (and some of the 'good' ones can be bad if they dislike you), you probably won't be happy with the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would warn potential hires against moving to take a job at the Board. This is no ordinary federal job. Attrition is very high. More so than other jobs, no one here cares about you as a person. If you get a bad judge (and some of the 'good' ones can be bad if they dislike you), you probably won't be happy with the job.

Have you worked in many attorney positions? The only positions who "care" about you are small law firms of no more than 6-ish people. If you want to be "cared" about, don't go into law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would warn potential hires against moving to take a job at the Board. This is no ordinary federal job. Attrition is very high. More so than other jobs, no one here cares about you as a person. If you get a bad judge (and some of the 'good' ones can be bad if they dislike you), you probably won't be happy with the job.

Have you worked in many attorney positions? The only positions who "care" about you are small law firms of no more than 6-ish people. If you want to be "cared" about, don't go into law.

I think what the poster meant is that the attrition rate at BVA is so high that not many people at BVA want to take the time to get to know their colleagues and form friendships. I mean, why try to form friendships when there is a high chance that the other person will quit or resign? Most people at BVA are so worried about meeting their production numbers that nothing/no one else matters.

[Anonymous]

The turnover indicates these are not desirable jobs. If you cannot get anything better, take it and use it as a stepping stone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The turnover indicates these are not desirable jobs. If you cannot get anything better, take it and use it as a stepping stone.

That's one way of looking at. Another way is that people who take this job have no practical experience and struggle to succeed. This job is honestly a cake walk for many people. And being 100% remote is amazing. Not every position is meant for every person. A person who wants to be in court arguing will not enjoy this position, which is writing based. But a person who wants no contact with litigation would likely love this position. There are so many factors one has to consider. Some people here make it sound like no one succeeds in the job, which is absolutely not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The turnover indicates these are not desirable jobs. If you cannot get anything better, take it and use it as a stepping stone.

That's one way of looking at. Another way is that people who take this job have no practical experience and struggle to succeed. This job is honestly a cake walk for many people. And being 100% remote is amazing. Not every position is meant for every person. A person who wants to be in court arguing will not enjoy this position, which is writing based. But a person who wants no contact with litigation would likely love this position. There are so many factors one has to consider. Some people here make it sound like no one succeeds in the job, which is absolutely not true.

If the BVA attorney position is a cake walk, why do so many BVA attorneys hate the job and leave within two years?

I agree that some BVA attorneys aren’t suited, personality wise, for decision writing. However, the decision writing attorneys at the Social Security Administration perform similar work as BVA attorneys for less pay, and their attrition rate is much much lower than at BVA.

I attribute the high attrition rate at BVA to the high quota (which is much higher than SSA) and the toxic work environment where judges and managers are freely allowed to bully/harass attorneys without any consequence (we all know who the toxic ones are, but nothing ever happens to them).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The turnover indicates these are not desirable jobs. If you cannot get anything better, take it and use it as a stepping stone.

The turnover is not because the job is not desirable. The job is good once you have passed probation and you have developed a working relationship with your VLJ. The problem is the impersonal online training and lack of mentoring that leaves the new hires to figure out things for themselves. Many of them get frustrated and leave or get invited to leave the first year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The turnover indicates these are not desirable jobs. If you cannot get anything better, take it and use it as a stepping stone.

The turnover is not because the job is not desirable. The job is good once you have passed probation and you have developed a working relationship with your VLJ. The problem is the impersonal online training and lack of mentoring that leaves the new hires to figure out things for themselves. Many of them get frustrated and leave or get invited to leave the first year.

Did you think people go to law school so that they can review thousands of pages of medical documents and draft a largely boilerplate decision every 8-10 hours? I think not. Let’s be honest, attorneys with options generally do not join BVA.

The attorneys that do tend to fall into the following four camps: doc reviewers who have never held the job title of “attorney” and desperately want that title; new law school graduates who desperately need a job; SSA attorneys who desperately want a job that offers the potential to earn more than a GS-12 salary; and attorneys in rural states who can’t move and desperately need a remote attorney job that pays more than their solo practitioner salary.

Unfortunately, many new hires soon realize that working at BVA sucks even more than wherever they came from.

[Anonymous]

There are probably as many different motivations as there are people at the Board. You sure are convinced that they are desperate. I can assure you that many of my colleagues are quite well off and have professional connections that allow them to go somewhere else if they choose.

I've seen enough people who lasted less than a year to know that it was usually not because they got there and discovered they did not like the job. Switching jobs with less than a year in time looks bad. At least half the turnover is due to not being able to make quota or having poor quality, and then being let go during probation.

I'm not sure why you would spend so much time attempting to profile your dream BVA straw man employee and then attacking your made up profile of an employee. It's frankly bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Does BVA offer overtime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does BVA offer overtime?

Yes, you may work as much unpaid overtime as you wish to meet your quota.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does BVA offer overtime?

Yes, you may work as much unpaid overtime as you wish to meet your quota.

that.

And yes, if you are "on pace" you can get overtime, but you must do more cases. If you need more than 40 hours to do your 3 cases, then the overtime is unpaid, and management pretends that it never happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The turnover indicates these are not desirable jobs. If you cannot get anything better, take it and use it as a stepping stone.

That's one way of looking at. Another way is that people who take this job have no practical experience and struggle to succeed. This job is honestly a cake walk for many people. And being 100% remote is amazing. Not every position is meant for every person. A person who wants to be in court arguing will not enjoy this position, which is writing based. But a person who wants no contact with litigation would likely love this position. There are so many factors one has to consider. Some people here make it sound like no one succeeds in the job, which is absolutely not true.

If the BVA attorney position is a cake walk, why do so many BVA attorneys hate the job and leave within two years?

I agree that some BVA attorneys aren’t suited, personality wise, for decision writing. However, the decision writing attorneys at the Social Security Administration perform similar work as BVA attorneys for less pay, and their attrition rate is much much lower than at BVA.

I attribute the high attrition rate at BVA to the high quota (which is much higher than SSA) and the toxic work environment where judges and managers are freely allowed to bully/harass attorneys without any consequence (we all know who the toxic ones are, but nothing ever happens to them).

You just assume the answer to your own question. Why bother posting here if you already know all the answers to your own questions? Hmmmm.