# Marrero v. Gober

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · August 30, 2000 · 14 Vet. App. 80

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502212

## Case

- **Full name:** Vernetta M. MARRERO, Appellant, v. Hershel W. GOBER, Acting Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** August 30, 2000
- **Citations:** 14 Vet. App. 80; 2000 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 859; 2000 WL 1224893
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Steinberg
- **Judges:** Ivers, Steinberg, Greene
- **Cited by:** 2 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/9502212

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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”).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502212. Public record. Not legal advice.