# Thompson v. Principi

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · November 19, 2002 · 16 Vet. App. 467

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502336

## Case

- **Full name:** Abraham THOMPSON, Appellant, v. Anthony J. PRINCIPI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** November 19, 2002
- **Citations:** 16 Vet. App. 467; 2002 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 903; 2002 WL 31549093
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Farley
- **Judges:** Kramer, Farley, Holdaway
- **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/9502336

## Opinion text

FARLEY, Judge,
concurring:
The elegant and eloquent dissent of our esteemed colleague prompts me to express my beliefs that:
Reasonable minds cannot differ on the fact that the veteran in 1993 signed and *472 submitted a “Former POW Medical History” report on which he checked the ‘Tes” boxes in response to inquiries whether he had experienced “intimidation,” “beatings,” and “psychological torture” while being detained in Switzerland during World War II. Record (R.) at 195.
Reasonable minds cannot differ on the fact that the Board did not discuss that report. Thompson v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 187, 188-89 (2000). Nor can reasonable minds differ on the additional fact that the Board went so far as to state that “there [was] no evidence, nor [had] the veteran claim[ed], that he experienced physical or psychological hardships or abuse while interned.” R. at 6.
And reasonable minds, presumably even that of the fictitious Mr. Bumble, cannot differ with the inescapable conclusions that the Board’s erroneous ostrich-like treatment of this report and its inexplicable failure to include a discussion of the report in the requisite statement of reasons or bases for its decision, which “compelled” the majority to remand this matter (Thompson, 14 Vet.App. at 189 ), were not substantially justified.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502336. Public record. Not legal advice.