holding that the Court reviews the Board’s application of the law to the facts under the deferential “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” standard of review
How later courts described this case
- holding that the Court reviews the Board’s application of the law to the facts under the deferential “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law” standard of review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STEINBERG, Judge,
concurring:
I write separately to stress that to the extent that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ Board denial of the appellant’s child’s claim for apportionment may have been intended as a broad determination that there is no basis in law for the Department of Veterans Affairs ever to make retroactive payment pursuant to a claim for apportionment, the Court’s action today does not address that broad question; rather, we affirm the Board’s decision that on the facts of this case “there is no basis for making a retroactive payment.” R. at 10; cf. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (e) (1999) (effective date of “[ojriginal” claim for “[appor tionment” shall be set “in accordance with the facts found”).