Show Notes
In this episode of "Arguendo: The Veterans Law Pod," hosts Amy Kretkowski and Amy Odom dissect two pivotal cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the Federal Circuit. They explore the complexities of Frantzis v. Wilkie, discussing the removal of statutory language and its impact on the rights of veterans within the AMA framework, and delve into Hamilton v. McDonough, where the intricacies of the attorney work-product doctrine in veterans' benefits claims are scrutinized. This episode provides a deep dive into the legal arguments, judicial interpretations, and broader implications of these decisions.
For more information, visit our websites at cck-law.com and abkveteranslaw.com
More from Arguendo: The Veterans Law Pod
In this episode of Arguendo: The Veterans Law Podcast, Amy Kretkowski and Amy Odom examine Hamill v. Collins, a closely watched Federal Circuit case addressing whether the Appeals Modernization Act’s enhanced notice requirements can coexist with the long-standing implicit denial doctrine. They explore the legal background of the case, the statutory framework governing VA decision notices, the arguments presented by both sides at oral argument, the broader implications for veterans seeking benefits, and more. Note: The case “Hamill v. Collins” was decided on February 4, 2026. This episode was recorded prior to this decision but accurately predicted its outcome. For more information, visit our websites at cck-law.com and abkveteranslaw.com
This special episode brings NOVA Fall Conference questions to the mic. Amy Odom and Amy Kretkowski walk through key precedential cases like Chisholm, Adams, Ingram, and Rice, while exploring broader issues of supplemental claims, implicit denial, and how advocates can best serve veterans navigating the VA system. For more information, visit our websites at cck-law.com and abkveteranslaw.com
In this episode of Arguendo, Amy Odom and Amy Kretkowski analyze Boehringer v. Collins, a case testing whether a veteran can trigger AMA’s continuous pursuit rules by filing a supplemental claim within a year of a legacy Board decision. They break down the statutory argument under Section 2(x) of the AMA, the government’s position on finality, and the broader implications for effective dates in a dual-system world. A must-listen for those tracking how AMA and legacy rules intersect. For more information, visit our websites at cck-law.com and abkveteranslaw.com
In this episode of Arguendo, Amy Odom and Amy Kretkowsi return from hiatus to unpack Deal v. Collins, a Federal Circuit case that challenges the reach of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). They explore the history and implications of legacy regulations on effective dates, dissect arguments presented by both sides, and consider how this case could shape the future of pending claim doctrine. They also discuss its potential impact on other cases. Tune in to learn more!For more information, visit our websites at cck-law.com and abkveteranslaw.com
In this episode of Arguendo: The Veterans Law Podcast, Amy Odom and Amy Kretkowski discuss the Supreme Court's October 16, 2024, oral arguments in Bufkin v. McDonough. The case centers on the interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1) and the scope of review that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must apply regarding the VA's benefit of the doubt rule. Get as the hosts analyze key points raised by advocates and justices, from the standard of review to Congress's intent behind the statute. For more information, visit our websites at cck-law.com and abkveteranslaw.com