Case law

Jeanine Frazier v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 23, 2024

Because the Board clearly erred when it dismissed the veteran's claims for SAH or SHA and automobile adaptive benefits, we will reverse that portion of the Board's decision. … Because Congress has spoken clearly about these matters, our job is merely to apply the statute.

Henry L. Gardner v. Erik K. Shinseki

22 Vet. App. 415 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 13, 2009

Character of Discharge and Insanity Determinations "In order to qualify for VA benefits, a claimant . . . or the party upon whose service the claimant predicates the claim . . . [must be] a 'veteran.'" … The Court reviews the Board's factual decision in this regard under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4); see Beck, supra; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 52-53 (1990).

Horowitz v. Brown

5 Vet. App. 217 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 11, 1993

right epididymitis was clearly erroneous; and whether the Board’s denial of a total rating for IU purposes was clearly erroneous. *221 The Court reviews the BVA’s finding under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review. … When seeking to establish service connection, a claimant is not limited solely to medical records.

Hermogenes v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 75 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 11, 1996

By letter dated February 19, 1991, the appellant was advised that as a result of a change in law he was no longer eligible for pension benefits upon turning sixty-five and that in order to qualify for pension benefits, he … The regulations clearly contemplate the inclusion of this type of lump sum retirement payment as income in one annualization period.

Arthur L. Hairston v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 20, 2023

Accordingly, the Court concludes that 38 U.S.C. § 1521(c) clearly requires that the payable pension rate be reduced by a spouse's income because it is countable as part of a veteran's annual income. … The statutory definition conditioned who can qualify as a "child" for VA benefits purposes on several factors, such as age, marital status, and student-status.

Douglas J. Rosinski v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 30, 2020

a "qualifying service-connected disability." … Snyder clearly established that VA's obligations under section 5904 to pay attorneys fees are not affected by additional statutory limitations on a particular veteran's ability to receive payment as those do not affect the

Brewer v. West

11 Vet. App. 228 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 29, 1998

Background The appellant had qualifying service in the U.S. Army from August 1986 to June 1989. R. at 83. … immunity due to unique reliance considerations).

Cross v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 150 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 31, 1992

On June 28, 1989, the RO denied service connection for traumatic arthritis and irritable bowel syndrome, stating that the evidence did not establish such connection. R. at 89-90. … Rather, this seems clearly a degenerative process, for which service connection cannot reasonably be granted.... and finding: [Post traumatic osteoarthritis and irritable bowel syndrome were] not incurred in or aggravated

Nix v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 462 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 5, 1993

In June 1987, the veteran requested a physical examination for the purpose of determining whether he was qualified to receive special monthly pension benefits. R. at 122. … Accordingly, the Court holds that the BVA’s conclusion that a stomach disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service is not clearly erroneous.

Gloria J. Greer v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 12, 2023

In July 2018, he established the Brinkman Family Wealth Defender Trust (Trust). The following month, he applied for non- service-connected pension. … In its discussion of the "detailed decision notification letters" mandated by that legislation, Congress clearly stated that "[t]he intent of this provision is to help better inform the veteran's decision regarding whether

Layno v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 465 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 27, 1994

The appellant claims the BVA erred in determining that he did not present sufficient credible evidence to establish service connection. … The record clearly indicates that the appellant’s service records were destroyed, but it does not appear that the appellant was advised to provide alternate forms of evidence.

Paul G. Wait v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 26, 2020

He no longer argued that VA regulations as a matter of law establish a disability. … The Court clearly and accurately explains how a claimant can establish that his or her subjective pain qualifies as a disability under 38 U.S.C. § 1110 because the pain reaches a level that causes functional impairment of

Donald v. McCray v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 18, 2019

He contends that "the [report] clearly states that there 'is little evidence available with which to address [the] question'" of whether there can be delayed-onset hearing loss long after acoustic trauma. Id. … Recap of Probative Value and Adequacy Principles The probative value of evidence is its "tendency . . . to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.

Khadijah El-Amin v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 136 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 15, 2013

Accordingly, the Board should, if it determines that a medical opinion is necessary on this issue, seek the opinion of a qualified medical professional.1 As a final matter, the Court notes that the Board also denied … Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990) (finding that a single judge may resolve an appeal if "the case on appeal is of relative simplicity and[, inter alia,] . . . does not apply an established rule of law to a novel fact

Perez v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 452 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 3, 1996

Analysis The ultimate burden of establishing the Court’s jurisdiction rests with the party seeking to appeal. See McNutt v. G.M.A.C., *454 298 U.S. 178, 189 , 56 S.Ct. 780, 785 , 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936). … In Calma , the Court elaborated on the meaning of the section 7266(a) requirement that an NOA must request Court review in order to qualify as a valid NOA.

Block v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 343 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 23, 1994

In the alternative, he argues that he is permanently unemployable by reason of his disability, and thus qualifies for pension based on the extra-schedular criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (b)(2) (1993). Br. at 12-16. … In order for this Court to reverse a BVA decision on a finding of fact, we must find that the BVA decision was clearly erroneous. See Gilbert v.

Robert L. Solze and Lois M. Dimitre v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 118 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 4, 2013

The SSOC stated that VA scheduled a field examination for July 6, 2012, for the purpose of qualifying a fiduciary so benefits could be paid. … Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 404 (2011), the selection and appointment of a fiduciary is a matter reviewable by the Board and by this Court. 9 Indeed, in Freeman , this Court held that a veteran “is clearly and indisputably entitled

Wilson v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 16 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 13, 1991

The November 1972 Report of Separation Examination did not mention any defects in the veteran’s condition and found him to be physically qualified to perform all duties. R. at 34-36. … is established ..., there is no requirement of evidentiary showing of continuity.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) (1991).

Francis M. Jackson v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 460 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 6, 2014

as an accrued benefits claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5121 ; Zevalkink, 102 F.3d at 1244 (the determination of whether a party qualifies as an accrued benefits claimant necessarily involves fact finding); Hayes v. … fact may be considered a determination that the Board’s May 2007 grant of service connection amounted to an award of past-due benefits as contemplated by 38 U.S.C. § 5904 (d), as discussed above, such a determination is clearly

Davenport v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 522 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 17, 2002

As to the appellant's arguments that Congress intended the 48-month limitation on beneficiaries under chapters 34 and 1606 to apply to only "those veterans whose single period of military service qualified them for both of … As in Harvey, even were the Court to determine here (1) that sovereign immunity does not apply, U.S. CONST . amend.