Case law

Rucker v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 67 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 27, 1997

The letter stated that “radar emissions], microwave type radiation does not qualify for service connection under current provisions of the law, as it emits no ionizing radiation.” Ibid. … Young has treated the appellant at least since January 1989 (R. at 41, 61), the opinion is clearly based on more than conversations, and finally, “highly likely” is not “may or may not” terminology. See Tirpak v.

Bernadine Acevedo v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 286 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 9, 2012

her bare assertion that her stressors are related to her fear of hostile military activity. 2 The Court does not reach the question of whether assault by one service member upon another could ever qualify … Based on the record of proceedings, the Board's view of and assignment of weight to this report are plausible and not clearly erroneous.

Spencer v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 283 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 1, 1993

The use of the words “pursuant to” clearly indicates that the benefits of this provision adhere only where the “Act or administrative issue” is one which provides a substantive basis for establishing entitlement to benefits … To the contrary, the provisions of section 3010(a) added by that Act, which establish effective dates for, inter alia, “a claim reopened after final adjudication”, clearly were intended to continue the provisions previously

Terrance D. Massie v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 123 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 19, 2011

Indeed, the sole reason panel consideration is necessary in this case is that the issue of what qualifies as a report of examination is vital to resolution of this appeal and VA has failed to promulgate a regulation clearly … Wesselius's May 1999 letter could not possibly qualify as a report of examination under § 3.157(b)(1).

Look v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 157 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 6, 1992

His induction physical examination revealed no defects and indicated that he was physically and mentally qualified for general military service. R. at 8-11. … Clearly, this determination is based upon the invalidated language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.358 (c)(3).

Bo v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 15, 2019

An individual with qualifying service in the Armed Forces that establishes eligibility on the part of such individual for educational assistance under this chapter, chapter 30 or 32 of this title, … If Congress establishes such differing treatment, so be it.

Frances D'Aries v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 97 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 8, 2008

In contrast, the Board stated that it could not establish whether Dr. … Quinn’s specialty in neurology clearly “rendered] him qualified to address the effects of an organic brain disorder.” R. at 7-8. The Board concluded that there was no competent medical evidence linking Mr.

Richard A. Stewart v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 8, 2025

"[S]ervice connection will be severed only where evidence establishes that it is clearly and unmistakably erroneous (the burden of proof being upon the Government)" and only after certain procedural safeguards have been met … "Consequently, the severance decision focuses—not on whether the original decision was clearly erroneous—but on whether the current 'evidence establishes that [service connection] is clearly [and unmistakably] erroneous.'

McGraw v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 138 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 15, 1994

MeGraw, appeals an October 15, 1992, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) which determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to establish service connection for a neurological disorder … In fact, the medical evidence as well as the service medical records and other testimony indicate clearly that the “symptoms” referred to by Dr.

Mitchem v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 138 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 13, 1996

It is the Secretary’s position that the BVA’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and therefore the decision of the BVA must be affirmed. … Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 394, 396 (1991) (matter remanded because BVA failed to give reasons or bases why veteran did not qualify for 70% rating); Wilson v.

Clara Sue Padgett v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 306 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 16, 2009

In order to qualify as a prevailing party, the appellant must receive at least “ ‘some relief on the merits of his claim.’ ” Sumner v. … Even acknowledging that the Court’s decision altered or overruled then-existing precedent on the “clearly erroneous” standard of review of the Board’s findings of fact, the law and regulation are well-established with respect

Donald R. Dennis v. R. James Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 18 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 31, 2007

As a result of this review, the Board has made a preliminary determination that you would not qualify for upgrading under the new, uniform standards for discharge review. … "'A finding [of fact] is "clearly erroneous" when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'"

Hayes v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 353 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 11, 1993

The hospital reports from the University of Texas and Loudoun Memorial submitted after death clearly fall within the scope of § 3.327(b)(1) and thus, if so “deemed,” within the scope of 115.25(b). … Moreover, because these documents may now qualify as VA examinations, they may also fall within the scope of 115.25(a)(2), (a)(3).

Miguel A. Camacho v. R. James Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 360 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 6, 2007

Brown, 10 Vet.App. 80, 84 (1997) (applying established caselaw that degree of disability under the rating code is a finding of fact subject to the “clearly erroneous” standard of review by this Court); Gilbert v. … insulin and having a restricted diet were sufficient to support a 40% disability rating without restriction of activities, then there would be no reason for “insulin and restricted *367 diet” to be one of the two ways to qualify

Clarke v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 20 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 10, 1997

], The [VA] regulation clearly states that flight training after October 1,1981, may only be authorized in degree currículums in the field of aviation that included required flight training. 38 C.F.R. § 21.134 (b). … Rather, he is being denied benefits that were part of a program for which he no longer qualifies.

Thomas Stevenson , Jr. v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 4, 2022

We also 1 Section 1151 provides compensation for qualifying additional disability or qualifying death caused by VA hospital care, surgical or medical treatment, examination, training and rehabilitation … Having established the ordinary meaning of "additional" applies in section 1151, the Court moves on to consider the meaning of "disability."

Flynn v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 500 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 3, 1994

Therefore, appellant’s hypertension could qualify for service connection if it were “proximately due to or the result of’ his service-connected diabetes. … Service connection will be established for diabetes mellitus effective June 10, 1974.

Sachs v. Gober

14 Vet. App. 175 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 27, 2000

. § 1310, DIC is paid to a surviving spouse of a qualifying veteran who died from a service-connected disability. See Hanna v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 507, 510 (1994). … It cannot be said to be clearly erroneous. B. 38 U.S.C. § 1318(b) In Hix v.

Holmes v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 38 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 14, 1997

Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 21 (1991) (before applying for benefits, a person must demonstrate, by preponderance of evidence, qualifying service and character of discharge); cf. Tulingan v. … The Court reviews BVA factfinding under a “clearly erroneous” standard; “if there is a ‘plausible’ basis in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA, ... [the Court] cannot overturn them.” Gilbert v.

David R. Gagne v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 397 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 19, 2015

At oral argument, counsel for the appellant stated that he is not seeking to qualify this event as a stressor for purposes of establishing service connection for PTSD, and this event's qualification as a stressor is therefore … The Secretary is unable to establish that further efforts to obtain verification of the appellant's alleged stressors would be "futile." Id.