Nothing should be returned by the Board or CAVC unless there is an actual error. If there is an error (even a minor one that you don’t think will affect the outcome), it should be returned. Anyone that does it differently isn’t doing their job. If you want a harmless error standard that is more forgiving, go ask congress for one. Attorneys who don’t follow the law because they think it is stupid or wasteful probably shouldn’t be attorneys.

Anonymous wrote:Exactly. It’s insane that after all of these years they cannot come up with a reasonable, sustainable quota & when they have, it’s changed. That’s the real waste of resources, scandal — defending poor policies — but let’s not give hardworking attorneys an opportunity to take advantage of incentive programs such as bonuses or overtime or student loan forgiveness (an expansion). Have you seen what other agencies are getting as incentives (DHS)? Now, student loan payments are ballooning thanks to the changes in law. Everything is more expensive thanks to tariffs & inflation. Let’s just make everyone miserable! I don’t get the chaos & hostility. Just make it a great place to work! Attorneys have shown they can meet the yearly quota, overall, so why treat them terribly.

The quota is reasonable but nothing is getting better unless the Court stops paying attorneys to clog up the system with appeals. They should get paid from back benefits exclusively.

Exactly. It’s insane that after all of these years they cannot come up with a reasonable, sustainable quota & when they have, it’s changed. That’s the real waste of resources, scandal — defending poor policies — but let’s not give hardworking attorneys an opportunity to take advantage of incentive programs such as bonuses or overtime or student loan forgiveness (an expansion). Have you seen what other agencies are getting as incentives (DHS)? Now, student loan payments are ballooning thanks to the changes in law. Everything is more expensive thanks to tariffs & inflation. Let’s just make everyone miserable! I don’t get the chaos & hostility. Just make it a great place to work! Attorneys have shown they can meet the yearly quota, overall, so why treat them terribly.

If they jack up the quota and threaten to fire people, just leave. There ARE better private sector jobs for Board attorneys. Veterans law firms, SSA disability, workers comp, etc. I’d take a pay cut to get rid of all the trump bullshit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

If it means decisions are issued faster and the denials are easier to get JMR’d, at least the private attorneys would be perfectly fine with this outcome.

The private bar wouldn’t earn so much money on JMRs if BVA attorneys and judges made less mistakes. It’s astounding that nearly 80% of BVA decisions contain errors so egregious that VA feels compelled to concede the error and agree to a remand.

80% huh? Cite your source.

https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Ho_HandanNader_Ames_Marcus.pdf

See page 241

2003-2016? lol. That’s like citing irrelevant case law.

Exactly. Veterans benefits law has completely changed since 2019. Let's see a study that covers stats since the enactment of AMA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, we can stop throwing around the 250 figure. That was put out there by an obvious troll and is beyond reason. The more realistic numbers are 169 for satisfactory, 185 for exceptional, which is what we had for a couple years two chairmen ago. Those numbers did not work, which is why they were eventually reduced to the current numbers.

Don’t post on DCUM during work hours if you can’t effectively manage your workload. You could easily hit 250 if you spent time drafting decisions instead of posting incessantly on DCUM.

You’re not wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, we can stop throwing around the 250 figure. That was put out there by an obvious troll and is beyond reason. The more realistic numbers are 169 for satisfactory, 185 for exceptional, which is what we had for a couple years two chairmen ago. Those numbers did not work, which is why they were eventually reduced to the current numbers.

Don’t post on DCUM during work hours if you can’t effectively manage your workload. You could easily hit 250 if you spent time drafting decisions instead of posting incessantly on DCUM.

You need to get that sand out of your vagina

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

If it means decisions are issued faster and the denials are easier to get JMR’d, at least the private attorneys would be perfectly fine with this outcome.

The private bar wouldn’t earn so much money on JMRs if BVA attorneys and judges made less mistakes. It’s astounding that nearly 80% of BVA decisions contain errors so egregious that VA feels compelled to concede the error and agree to a remand.

80% huh? Cite your source.

https://dho.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/Ho_HandanNader_Ames_Marcus.pdf

See page 241

2003-2016? lol. That’s like citing irrelevant case law.

Anonymous wrote:Will they bring overtime back as an incentive?

Isn’t that a waste of public resources? Instead of paying overtime, management should simply increase the quota. If people have time to post on DCUM during work hours, the current quota simply isn’t challenging enough. Hike the quota to 250 cases a year.

Will they bring overtime back as an incentive?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

If it means decisions are issued faster and the denials are easier to get JMR’d, at least the private attorneys would be perfectly fine with this outcome.

The private bar wouldn’t earn so much money on JMRs if BVA attorneys and judges made less mistakes. It’s astounding that nearly 80% of BVA decisions contain errors so egregious that VA feels compelled to concede the error and agree to a remand.

Fewer* mistakes. I see why you got fired.

You assume too much, my friend. Also, I passed BVA’s writing test, so while my writing may not be the best, it is acceptable by BVA standards.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Union bargaining is blocked now. Expect dramatically harder performance standards in October.

I think a quota of 250 cases a year would be challenging but attainable.

Sure, why not? Anythings possible. Everyone would have to adjust their work practices drastically, many good people would quit because of it, and no one would be happy with the decisions coming from the Board. But it's possible!

If it means decisions are issued faster and the denials are easier to get JMR’d, at least the private attorneys would be perfectly fine with this outcome.

The private bar wouldn’t earn so much money on JMRs if BVA attorneys and judges made less mistakes. It’s astounding that nearly 80% of BVA decisions contain errors so egregious that VA feels compelled to concede the error and agree to a remand.

Fewer* mistakes. I see why you got fired.

Just as a Board attorney can find a way to remand basically any case, CAVC can find a way to overturn pretty much any Board decision. And there are CAVC judges who see their role as finding some way to overturn basically every Board decision.

That's why nobody puts much stock in the 80% statistic.

The problem is a lot of the "errors" make no difference. The Board failed to discuss one instance of tingling pain in the arm and the person gets a JMR but that one instance of pain makes absolutely no difference in the rating. Or the Board failed to get medical records from 1984 that are related to back problem when the claim is for blood pressure. The Court will call an error and return it to the Board for a new decision and pay an attorney, but these "errors" are not actual quality problems. The only purpose is to make money for a law firm in Rhode Island. Then they make You Tube videos lamenting the horrible decisions like and wondering why it takes VA so long to issue a new decision that makes no difference. They are shysters of ths hughest order. You know which firm.