noting, at note 2, page 86, long line of Court precedent holding where BVA had erroneously adjudicated a claim which the Court determines was not well grounded that BVA denial of the claim on the merits is not prejudicial to the veteran and should be affirmed by the Court
How later courts described this case
- noting, at note 2, page 86, long line of Court precedent holding where BVA had erroneously adjudicated a claim which the Court determines was not well grounded that BVA denial of the claim on the merits is not prejudicial to the veteran and should be affirmed by the Court
- Kramer and Steinberg, JJ., dissenting separately and jointly to denial of en bane review
- Kramer and Steinberg, JJ., dissenting separately and jointly to denial of en banc review
- Kramer and Steinberg, JJ., dissenting to denial of en banc review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANKIN, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I concur with the majority, but I feel constrained to observe that Judge Kramer raises an issue which does not exist in this case. When that issue is properly before this Court, then it should be addressed. Until that time, the Court has not expressed itself.