# Zink v. Brown

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 16, 1997 · 10 Vet. App. 258

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8167233

## Case

- **Full name:** Ronald M. ZINK v. Jesse BROWN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** May 16, 1997
- **Citations:** 10 Vet. App. 258; 1997 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 398; 1997 WL 268964
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nebeker
- **Judges:** Holdaway, Ivers, Nebeker
- **Cited by:** 6 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/8167233

## Opinion text

NEBEKER, Chief Judge,
concurring:
While I agree with my colleagues that remand is the appropriate outcome in the instant case, I find the appellant’s argument not only cogent but nearly persuasive. While I am not prepared to hold that the appellant is entitled, as a matter of law, to a 100% rating, the question of clear error is very close. The evidence of record appears most persuasive of a finding of unemployability despite the Board’s failure to reach such a conclusion, and on remand, the Board should make the effort to consider the argument on clear error contained in the appellant’s brief in this Court. Had such argument been made to the Board before, I doubt the appeal to us would have been necessary.
Further, in my view, the Board also has reached its conclusion as to Mr. Zink’s employability without supportive evidence, contrary to this Court’s holding in Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 175 (1991). Where the only evidence of record suggests the veteran is not employable, the Board’s ipse dixit determination that he can be employed violates our holding in Colvin .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8167233. Public record. Not legal advice.