# Carpenter v. West

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · March 24, 1998 · 11 Vet. App. 140

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8167362

## Case

- **Full name:** Angeline P. CARPENTER v. Togo D. WEST, Jr., Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** March 24, 1998
- **Citations:** 11 Vet. App. 140; 1998 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 348; 1998 WL 134007
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Ivers
- **Judges:** Ivers, Kramer, Steinberg
- **Cited by:** 25 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/8167362

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that Court could not then consider under section 1318 appellant’s claim of CUE against 1984 BVA decision because “appellant’s section 1318 DIC claim specifically raised CUE only as to the 1983 RO decision” and new CUE Act making prior BVA decision also subject to CUE a…
- applying In re Fee Agreement of Smith for purpose of determining whether subsequent BVA adjudication subsumed pri- or RO decision so as to insulate that RO decision from collateral attack on grounds of CUE
- recognizing that the result in Green hinged in part on the interpretation of the regulation

## Opinion text

IVERS, Judge,
concurring:
Based on the broad language of 38 C.F.R. § 19.196 , I must concur in the majority’s application of the dicta in Green (Doris) v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 111, 118 (1997), to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to a review of her claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 without regard to any disposition of the issues raised by the *148 claim during her husband’s lifetime. The question remains, however, as to the starting point for review upon remand. Since the issue articulated by the appellant in her § 1318 claim is CUE in the 1983 RO decision, does review begin at that point? Under the “entitled to receive” provision of § 1318, must the starting point of analysis be the veteran’s date of discharge from service in 1945, or the date of the first award of TDIU in 1975, or August 19, 1981, ten years before the veteran’s death? Furthermore, if a complete review is to be made without regard to any disposition during the veteran’s lifetime, must VA revisit those dispositions that were favorable to the veteran as well as those that were not? These questions are among those to be addressed by the Board on remand.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8167362. Public record. Not legal advice.