# Booth v. Brown

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · August 7, 1995 · 8 Vet. App. 109

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6612648

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul E. BOOTH v. Jesse BROWN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** August 7, 1995
- **Citations:** 8 Vet. App. 109; 1995 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 591; 1995 WL 470482
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Farley
- **Judges:** Farley, Mankin, Steinberg
- **Cited by:** 7 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/6612648

## Opinion text

FARLEY, Judge,
concurring:
Both the earlier single-judge decision in this matter, Booth v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 280 *113 (1993), (mem. dec.), and today’s panel decision are in keeping with the precedential decisions of this Court in White v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 519 (1991) and Ivey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 320 (1992) and therefore I am compelled to concur. Nevertheless, I do so begrudgingly because I continue to believe that White and Ivey cannot be squared with 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (a). See Counts v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 473, 480-83 (1994) (Farley, J., concurring). In my view, once the Court determined in 1993 that this appellant had not submitted new and material evidence, there was nothing to remand; 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (a) did not impose upon the Secretary a duty to assist this appellant because his finally-denied claim was not reopened. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108 . To the extent that our duty-to-assist jurisprudence under White and Ivey appears to the contrary, I again “respectfully suggest to our bench and bar that the emperor we have created has no statutory clothes.” Id. at 483.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6612648. Public record. Not legal advice.