Case law

Wallin v. West

11 Vet. App. 509 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 16, 1998

It possibly represents an abnormal immune response to certain infections, perhaps related to hereditary susceptibility.” DoRLANd’s at 1638. … medical evidence of record is insufficient, or, in the opinion of the BVA, of doubtful weight or credibility, the BVA is always free to supplement the record by ... citing recognized medical treatises in its decisions that clearly

Alberto Q. Palor v. R. James Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 325 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 29, 2007

This finding is clearly erroneous. See May-field, 444 F.3d at 1333-34 . … or does not qualify him for veteran status may be binding on his claim.

ZN v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 183 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 4, 1994

Latham’s August 1992 statement that the veteran “clearly” had a history of developing adenopathy and fever in 1982 that likely represented the onset of HIV infection (R. at 303), the Board stated: “[T]hat history clearly … In any event, the veteran would not have been qualified to determine the diagnosis of any medical problem.” Ibid.

Valerie Y. Smith v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 40 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 17, 2010

In the absence of such evidence, the period of active duty for training would not qualify as "active military, naval, or air service," and the appellant would not qualify as a "veteran" by virtue of the active duty for training … is not clearly erroneous.

Venturella v. Gober

10 Vet. App. 340 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 15, 1997

. § 3.105 (a), and “service connection will be severed only where evidence establishes that it is clearly and unmistakably erroneous (the burden of proof being on the Government),” 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (d), except where an award … that service connection was clearly illegal. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105 (emphasis added).

David A. Andrews v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 22, 2021

Andrews hepatitis C was "unknown" but was not related to his in-service immunizations because "air gun injections are not a risk factor" for the condition. R. at 490-91. … Andrews was exposed to air gun immunizations in service but there was "no direct correlation with hepatitis C." R. at 48. Additionally, the examiner noted that Mr.

Smith v. Gober

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 31, 2000

As the Supreme Court has clearly instructed, any waiver of sovereign immunity must be explicit. N.Y. Rayon Importing Co., supra. … Even assuming arguendo that the Secretary has the authority, he clearly has not delegated such authority.

Michael T. Acciola v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 320 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 5, 2008

The letter concluded by stating that "service connection should be established in accordance with 38 C.F.R. [§§] 3.303, 3.304, 3.307." R. at 62. … Subsequently, the appellant's representative filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) that stated: We maintain the [RO] decision of April 13, 2000, is clearly erroneous, for not establishing service[] connection

Turco v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 222 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 2, 1996

In February 1992, a VA regional office (RO) established a 40% schedular disability rating for the appellant’s lower back problems. R. at 74-75. … As a consequence, the BVA’s conclusion that the appellant was not qualified to receive SMP under the housebound rate was plausible, and thus not clearly erroneous. See Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 53 .

Bledsoe v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 32 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 19, 1990

He had difficulty with school work and despite a great deal of special education never qualified for a high school diploma; he received a certificate of completion. … It follows that the decision below was not clearly erroneous. The failure to establish the permanent disability prior to the 18th birthday of the appellant’s son is dispositive.

James A. Bardwell v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 36 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 17, 2010

By contrast, the in-service event, injury, or disease prong does not qualify the quality of evidence necessary to meet its threshold: the evidence must establish that there was a disease, injury, or event in service. … Bardwell has not asserted that the Board clearly erred in finding that he was not exposed to gases or chemicals in service and therefore fails to carry his burden of establishing error. See Hilkert v.

William Shade v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 110 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 2, 2010

The Secretary contends that to qualify as new, evidence submitted must not be cumulative of the evidence of record, and to qualify as material, the evidence submitted must relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate … Further, the Board, in its 2008 decision, acknowledged that the record qualified as new evidence. R. at 10-11.

Snyder v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 285 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 14, 2001

Gen. 102, 106 (1922) (establishing that, where Veterans' Bureau made erroneous payment to person not entitled thereto and where another person is clearly entitled to that payment, it is "duty" of Director of Veterans' Bureau … Sovereign Immunity and Payment The Secretary next argues that "this Court misinterpreted controlling precedent on sovereign immunity". Mot. at 7.

Bazalo v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 304 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 16, 1996

In establishing substantial justification, the government must show that its position had a reasonable basis *310 in law and fact. Pierce v. … By articulating the jurisdictional requirements clearly in this opinion, we aim to promote this goal.

Pamela J. Sharp v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 267 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 15, 2009

This regulation similarly does not aid in discerning whether the Secretary considers there to be only one qualifying rating, as opposed to every rating meeting the statutory requirements to be a qualifying rating. … The Court is not persuaded by the Secretary's argument that this language supports his interpretation that only the first qualifying disability rating qualifies for additional compensation.

William E. Frasure , Jr. v. Anthony J. Principi

18 Vet. App. 379 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 14, 2004

Merchant Marine, it is unclear whether the Board properly considered all documents before it, and it would thus be premature for the Court to determine whether the Board's denial of the claim for qualifying service was "clearly … VA must also assist the appellant by determining whether his DD Form 214 clearly described the nature of his service or whether it was issued solely to establish active-duty service for the purpose of burial and interment

Sandoval v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 7 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 16, 1994

However, the evidence simply does not establish that the appellant did not have knowledge of such legal impediment. … Clearly, her statements indicate that she was aware that her “common law marriage” was not valid under Philippine law.

Celerina Pelea v. R. James Nicholson

19 Vet. App. 296 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 5, 2005

Indeed, as set forth in part III.A, above, Soria appears to establish an option for a claimant to show qualifying service "with either official documentation issued by a United States service department or verification of … discussed above, the Court concludes that under either interpretation of § 3.203 the Secretary did not comply with his notice obligations in this case6, and that the Secretary has not demonstrated that such notice error was clearly

Helen Barela v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 155 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 24, 2008

LAW AND ANALYSIS The question before the Court is whether the Board was correct in not awarding DIC benefits under section 1311(a)(2) to a veteran's qualified survivor who had not first qualified for DIC benefits under … Brown, 7 Vet.App. 55, 58 (1994) (in increased-rating claim entitlement to compensation has already been established).

Vda de Landicho v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 42 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 23, 1994

Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 32, 33 (1990) (“clearly erroneous” standard must be applied in assessing the Board’s factual “determination of the capacity of the appellant’s son to support himself’). … Court Rule Amendment In light of the above analysis, and following the procedure established in Stillwell v.