Curtis v. Wilkie

<p>Case: 20-1349 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 10/27/2020 NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ DANIEL L. CURTIS, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2020-1349 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 18-6818, Judge Michael P. Allen. ______________________ Decided: October 27, 2020 ______________________ DANIEL L. CURTIS, Mosca, CO, pro se. JANA MOSES, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Di- vision, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JEFFREY B. CLARK, CLAUDIA BURKE, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.; CHRISTINA LYNN GREGG, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Case: 20-1349 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 10/27/2020 2 CURTIS v. WILKIE Before NEWMAN, DYK, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Appellant Daniel L. Curtis appeals the memorandum decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirming the Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision to deny Mr. Curtis an effective date earlier than February 6, 2013, for service connection for coronary artery disease. Curtis v. Wilkie, No. 18-6818, 2019 WL 4309770 (Vet. App. Sept. 12, 2019) (Decision). Mr. Curtis also makes argu- ments related to a reasonably raised claim for service con- nection for anxiety and to his requests for specific paper records. Because Mr. Curtis only challenges factual deter- minations or the application of law to fact, issues we lack jurisdiction to review, we dismiss. I Mr. Curtis served on active duty in the United States Army from December 1969 to September 1972. Decision at *1. On February 6, 2013, the Department of Veterans Affairs received Mr. Curtis’s claim for service connection for coronary artery disease. Appellant’s Br. 120. 1 VA granted presumptive service connection based on exposure to Agent Orange and assigned a 100 percent rating, effec- tive February 6, 2013. Id. Mr. Curtis appealed the effective date assigned for his service-connected coronary artery disease to the Board, as- serting that the effective date should have been as early as the day after his discharge from service, because he filed a claim for service connection for a heart disorder within a 1 Citations to Mr. Curtis’s informal brief (and the pages and documents included therein) reflect the pagina- tion applied by this court’s electronic case files system, Docket No. 3. Case: 20-1349 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 10/27/2020 CURTIS v. WILKIE 3 year of his separation from the military. Id. In support of his claim, Mr. Curtis submitted a copy of his application for medical benefits form dated October 19, 1972, and a medi- cal record dated October 19, 1972. Id. at 121. On November 9, 2018, the Board denied an effective date earlier than February 6, 2013. Id. at 117. The Board considered the statements of both Mr. Curtis and his friend, Joe Funk, submitted in connection with his Febru- ary 2013 claim about symptoms going back to 1972. Deci- sion at *2. The Board also considered Mr. ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4800535/curtis-v-wilkie/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on, it is strongly advised to avoid Curtis v. Wilkie in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Curtis v. Wilkie. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Curtis v. Wilkie is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.