Cornell v. McDonald, Opinion Number 15-3191, decided December
12, 2016 involves a dispute over whether an attorney earned a fee related to a
claim.
Cornell represented the veteran on a claim for hearing loss
which resulted in a favorable result in 2011.
After the favorable result, the attorney wrote a letter to the veteran
closing her file. Six months later, the
veteran, with the assistance of a VSO applied for individual
unemployability. The IU claim was
granted with an effective date going back to the initial favorable result in
2011. The VA withheld the attorney fee
from the veteran’s award and paid it over to the attorney. Five months later, the veteran appeared to have filed a notice of disagreement and the VA attempted to claw back the fee as unearned.
On appeal, the attorney admitted she never presented a claim,
argument, or evidence for individual unemployabilty, that she overlooked the possibility
of an IU claim, and that she closed her file after the initial favorable decision. But, the attorney argued that the IU award was
premised on her earlier favorable result, used the same effective date, and
that the delay in the VA trying to claw back the money (5 months after it was
paid to her, which would have been 8-10 months after the veteran found out
about the result) all supported finding the award was appropriate.
The Court found she did not contribute to the award and thus
did not earn it.
I can’t help but feel the result was correct. The attorney did not meaningfully contribute to
the IU claim. However, her brief makes
clear she only accepted a fee the VA initially determined she was owed. And, that the challenge to the fee was very
delayed (through the negligence of the VA); the result being that a fee she
might have used to keep her practice open and help more veterans was taken away
from her. This is a hard case to see any
true winners in. Perhaps the real lesson is the always remember to get in evidence and argument about a claim for individual unemployability.
Written by Chief Judge Davis and joined in by Judges Kasold
and Lance.
No comments:
Post a Comment