Case law

Ramey v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 40 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 1, 1996

The appellant filed a Notice of Disagreement in January 1991, in which she stated that the DNA clearly could not establish my husband’s location in Japan from his arrival in the Pacific Theater of Occupation until February … In Combee, 34 F.3d at 1043 , the Court stated:' Exposure alone, as a result of atmospheric testing or service in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, qualifies a veteran suffering from a listed disease that has become manifest within a

Nancy C. Gazaille v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 205 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 4, 2014

of at least one year to qualify for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits. … Moreover, absent a “clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary,” a statute’s plain meaning “must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive.” Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v.

Aurelia v. Mayang

8 Vet. App. 260 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 11, 1995

Mayang, who had qualified service. On the oath and certificate of enlistment, the veteran listed the appellant as his sister and someone to be notified in case of an emergency. … The RO found that the appellant had failed to establish service connection for the cause of death and basic eligibility for benefits.

McColley v. West

13 Vet. App. 553 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 21, 2000

ANALYSIS Generally, a Board determination of the proper effective date is a finding of fact, which the Court reviews under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. See Hanson v. … The effective date for payment due to a claimant based on dependency shall be the latest of: (1) the "date of claim"; (2) the date dependency arises; (3) the effective date of the qualifying disability, so long as evidence

Stenson Fears, Jr. v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 12, 2019

ANALYSIS The appellant principally argues the Board clearly erred in denying service connection because, under the doctrine of "offensive collateral estoppel," VA was precluded from relying on Dr. … The presumption is that VA has properly chosen an examiner who is qualified to provide competent medical evidence in a particular case absent a challenge by the veteran."86 B.

Paulson v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 466 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 21, 1995

We review the Board’s determination of aggravation, like other findings of fact, under the clearly erroneous standard. Id. at 287 ; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 53 (1990). … The Board denied the appellant the presumption of soundness on the ground that he could not be a veteran since active duty for training qualifies as “active military, naval or air service” only if the individual has previously

Caluza v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 498 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 12, 1995

Caluza, had qualifying active-duty service (missing status and recognized guerilla service) in the Philippine Army from November 1944 to November 1945. Record (R.) at 5,17,22, 27; Supplemental (Suppl.) R. at 14. … Findings of fact by the BVA may be overturned by the Court only when they are “clearly erroneous”. 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(4); see Gilbert, supra.

Tyra K. Mitchell v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 32 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 23, 2011

Once pain is objectively established and "crosses the VA- established threshold" that denotes functional loss, the "examiner must then determine the exact point at which pain first sets in within the presumed normal range … The Court clearly instructed the Board to consider the effect of pain on range of motion, as required by 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45.

Gahman v. West

12 Vet. App. 406 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 4, 1999

Skinner found the appellant physically qualified for service. In June 1963, Dr. George D. … Set procedures have been established to notify the service *412 members of the actions to be taken by the medical board and their rights in that process. See generally Disability Evaluation Manual.

Joel Newman v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 16, 2022

This case addresses the standard the Board must use when determining whether a veteran qualifies for the insanity exception. … Newman did not qualify for either 2 exception. Thus, the Board ruled that Mr.

Keith A. Roberts v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 416 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 23, 2010

that service connection was clearly illegal.”). … that service connection was clearly illegal.”

Benny R. Roper v. R. James Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 173 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 13, 2006

This nexus requirement is clearly ascertainable from the statutory basic entitlement language. … Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992), this Court stated that generally "'scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge,' must be provided by a 'witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training,

Corchado v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 160 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 5, 1991

.) *162 Since appellant is appealing from a BVA decision and there is no indication that he did not file a qualifying Notice of Disagreement (NOD) (the record before us does not contain any reference to an NOD date; according … In order to establish standing, the litigant must show “personal injury fairly traceable to the ... unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” [Allen v.

Johnson v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 369 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 5, 1996

(2) who is eligible for a pension under subchapter III of chapter 15 of title 38, United States Code, or section 9(b) of the Veterans’ Pension Act of 1959 ( 73 Stat. 436 ); and (3) whose annual income, as determined in establishing … No. 92-425 ) was to provide a certain minimum level of income to qualifying widows and that this income would be in addition to payments from VA. The appellant notes that Rep.

Zang v. Brown

8 Vet. App. 246 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 5, 1995

Application of Law to Facts The veteran has qualifying service for purposes of basic eligibility for VA non-service-connected pension under 38 U.S.C. § 1521 (a). … erroneous under 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(4), and thus the presumption established by § 3.302 under Sheets v.

Richard C. Raugust v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 475 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 11, 2010

Raugust also asserts that the 24-month service minimum to qualify for VA medical benefits is unconstitutional, as it violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Appellant's Br. at 10-11. … Raugust has not established that this finding was clearly erroneous. See Hilkert v. West, 12 Vet.App. 145, 151 (1999) (en banc) (holding that appellant has the burden of demonstrating error). Although Mr.

Dela Cruz v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 143 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 21, 2001

The explanation continued: The bill establishes a statutory test to be applied by [VA] in such cases, providing for the termination of benefits where the widow of a veteran lives … The Court finds that the evidence of record provides a plausible basis for the Board's factual conclusions, and they are not "clearly erroneous."

Andre v. West

14 Vet. App. 7 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 20, 2000

The Secretary asserts that the Court should (1) dismiss the claim as a matter of law because the June 1973 RO decision was subsumed by the May 1978 Board decision and is, therefore, immune from collateral attack; (2) affirm … It is thus a means for correction of a 3  clearly and unmistakably wrong decision, compared with an appeal to the Board, which permits review of decisions

Vanerson v. West

12 Vet. App. 254 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 18, 1999

The Board began its analysis of the facts by stating that “the medical evidence of record clearly and convincingly establishes that a seizure disorder pre[]existed the appellant’s period of military service.” … When the predicate evidence is established that triggers the presumption, the further evidentiary gap is filled by the presumption.

Fossie v. West

12 Vet. App. 1 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 30, 1998

In determining that the evidence presented by the appellant qualified as “new and material” the Board, in February 1996, applied the materiality test adopted by this Court in Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171 (1991). … The standard to be used to establish in-service stressors depends upon whether or not the veteran engaged in combat.