When I lost my husband, a 20-year Navy veteran, to asbestosis and lung cancer, I was very fortunate that I found Attorney Wildhaber to handle my DIC claim before the VA, . . . he was attentive, professional and knowledgeable. . . . Now I receive my survivor's compensation every month. -- Dolores B., Chula Vista, CA
Attorney Wildhaber is one of the absolute best. . . . He never stopped fighting for me! Now I receive my unemployability benefits and get the treatment I need for my PTSD and IBS. -- George G., Clarksville, GA
Attorney Wildhaber has accumulated more than three decades of experience assisting those who have answered the call to serve their country in uniform. He has represented veterans and their dependents before the VA since 1985, first with Vietnam Veterans of America Legal Services (VVALS) and the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP), and then opening his own veterans law practice in Washington, DC, in 1994.
Experience like this is essential to successfully confront and navigate the complex benefits and adjudication process that is "the VA." Over his long legal career Attorney Wildhaber has represented thousands of veterans and their family members before the VA, the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and the Veterans Court, and succeeded in winning millions of dollars in VA compensation benefits for his clients.
LITIGATION OF NOTE
Attorney Wildhaber was one of the first attorneys in the country to be admitted to practice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("Veterans Court") when its operations commenced in 1990. Since then the Veterans Court's docket shows that he has entered his appearance on behalf of the veteran in over 530 cases. This work has led to some important precedential Veterans Court decisions helpful to all veterans, including
-- Gray v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 313 (2015), which invalidated the VA's definition of "inland waters" as irrational, which VA had used to deny Agent Orange benefits to Navy veterans who served in the harbors and bays of Vietnam; and
-- Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.App. 517 (2014), which rejected the VA's reliance on a negative medical opinion that applied a higher standard of medical proof regarding heart disease and PTSD because it was inconsistent with the VA's "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule.