Opinion

Smith v. Brown

  • 10 Vet. App. 44
  • 1996 WL 785603
Court
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Filed
Sep 4, 1996
Status
Published
Author
Holdaway
On the bench
Farley, Holdaway, Ivers, Kramer, Mankin, Nebeker, Steinberg, Vers
Cited by
3 cases

claimant’s right to submit additional evidence in Thurber /Austin situation could not be limited to showing of good cause

How later courts described this case

  • claimant’s right to submit additional evidence in Thurber /Austin situation could not be limited to showing of good cause

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

HOLDAWAY, Judge,

concurring:

I agree with the dissenting members. The Board, correctly, based on the precedent from this Court that was cited and relied upon in its decision, found the ease not well grounded. That finding, if correct, would obviate consideration of the issues upon which remand was based. Nonetheless I vote to deny en bane consideration. This case provides no precedent except in a very narrow range of eases that are factually identical. As such it is not a case of “exceptional importance” nor does it purport to vitiate our general rule that requires medical nexus. In short this case is an aberration. This judge, at least, will continue to apply the precedents cited in the dissent that preclude lay persons from supplying medical nexus to “well ground” a claim.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.