# Rogers v. Derwinski

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 21, 1992 · 2 Vet. App. 419

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6609454

## Case

- **Full name:** Harriet ROGERS v. Edward J. DERWINSKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** May 21, 1992
- **Citations:** 2 Vet. App. 419; 1992 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 129; 1992 WL 105471
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Steinberg
- **Judges:** Farley, Nebeker, Steinberg
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6609454

## Opinion text

STEINBERG, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the opinion of the Court except for its unnecessary diversion to reiterate ill-advised conclusions stated in Aguilar v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 21, 23 (1991). Just as was the case in Aguilar , the benefit of the doubt issue is not raised by the facts before the Court because the evidence so clearly preponderates against the claimant that it cannot reasonably be read as being in “equipoise” on any material issue. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990); Aguilar, 2 Vet.App. at 23-24 (concurring opinion). There is thus no reason to reach the issue of the benefit of the doubt in this case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6609454. Public record. Not legal advice.