concluding that 70-year-old appellant was ineligible for accrued benefits because he did not satisfy statutory definition of “child” in 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A), which excludes anyone over age 23 unless they were “permanently incapable of self-support” before attaining age 18
How later courts described this case
- concluding that 70-year-old appellant was ineligible for accrued benefits because he did not satisfy statutory definition of “child” in 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A), which excludes anyone over age 23 unless they were “permanently incapable of self-support” before attaining age 18
- stating that benefits were awarded to the appellant under sections 5121 and 5310
- reviewing a Board decision denying accrued benefits because the appellant had not established eligibility as an accrued-benefits beneficiary
- denying DIC, as a matter of law, to the elderly child of a veteran
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FARLEY, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the Court’s decision to affirm the BVA decision. However, I do not join in the majority’s refusal to consider or address the applicability of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub.L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (VCAA). I agree that this Court is not *355 required to specifically address the potential applicability of the VCAA in every case, particularly when the parties have not raised the issue. See Williams v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 189 (2001). However, where, as here, the law and not the evidence is dispositive, the VCAA clearly can have no applicability. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 426 (1994); cf. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 227, 231-32 (2000) (holding that VCAA did not affect the veteran’s claim for payment of interest on past-due benefits). In such cases, I believe it is appropriate for the Court to so state. See, e.g., Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 165 (2001); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143 (2001); Smith, supra. Moreover, as our ease law develops in this area, it would be useful to the veterans bar to have precedential opinions providing guidance on this Court’s interpretation of the VCAA.