Case law

Maxson v. West

12 Vet. App. 453 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 6, 1999

A September 1939 medical examination for reenlistment into the National Guard noted that he had had a colectomy, but did not note any residuals and found that he was physically qualified for further service. … Rajender that is based on the veteran’s claims file and SMRs, and the [two lay statements] clearly and convincingly rebut the presumption of aggravation. R. at 14. This appeal followed.

Karen S. McDowell v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 207 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 13, 2009

To use the building analogy once again, the foundation the regulation was built on was clearly paternal responsibility and the establishment of a paternal relationship. … Further, this highlights that when biology is the basis for establishing paternity, it must be clearly specified.

Thomas M. Nielson v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 56 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 21, 2009

Nielson argues that the circumstances surrounding the extraction of his teeth qualify as "service trauma." … He also contends that the Board was clearly erroneous in finding that the substandard dental care he received in service does not constitute "service trauma."

Dyment v. West

13 Vet. App. 141 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 2, 1999

. § 1310 , dependency and indemnity compensation (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). … Brown, 5 Vet.App. 229, 232 (1993) (a finding of service connection, or no service connection, is a finding of fact reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard). Dr.

Jonathan L. Haas v. R. James Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 257 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 16, 2006

Accordingly, we rejected the appellant's claim that the veteran's service in the San Diego, California, area qualified the appellant for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1805. Id. … A veteran must have actually served on land within the Republic of Vietnam . . . to qualify for the presumption of exposure to herbicides. . . .

Werner G. Hood v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 295 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 25, 2009

Availability of the VAMC Report Although the Court has concluded that the Board clearly erred in relying on Dr. … The record is also devoid of any document put forth by the Secretary to prove that the VAMC investigation and report qualify as quality assurance activities.

Richard M. Simon v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 20, 2018

. . it will not be used as a basis of reduction."36 Furthermore, with regard to diseases subject to temporary and episodic improvement, a veteran's rating will not be reduced on a single examination absent evidence that clearly … e second sentence of subsection (c), which describes the type of disabilities that do not qualify for rating protection, reinforces our conclusion.

Mattern v. West

12 Vet. App. 222 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 23, 1999

He further opined that exposure to East Asia is “a common variable for many people who have this grave disease,” and that “the medical literature is *225 clearly in support of [the appellant’s] claim.” Id. … APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS DIC is paid to the surviving spouse, children, or parents of a qualifying veteran who dies from a service-connected disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1310 ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.5 (1998).

Cropper v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 450 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 23, 1994

Thus, a claimant must establish as a threshold matter that he was discharged under conditions other than dishonorable. Id. … The Court reviews such assertions of error in fact finding under the “clearly erroneous” standard. Rogers v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 419, 421 (1992). In Gilbert v.

Prejean v. West

13 Vet. App. 444 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 25, 2000

In order to qualify to the special monthly compensation, a veteran must satisfy the requirements in 38 C.F.R. § 3.352(a): The following will be accorded consideration in determining the need for regular aid … It is only necessary that the evidence establish that the veteran is so helpless as to need regular aid and attendance, not that there be a constant need.

Bowling v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 1 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 8, 2001

These prolonged absences would appear to have threatened his current employment situation and to qualify as more than merely “time off’. … The Court has the power to “hold unlawful and set aside” a finding of material fact only “if the finding is clearly erroneous.” 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(4).

Talley v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 282 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 6, 1992

Section 4.15 of the regulations, in establishing general policies for determining total disability ratings (for both service-connected-disability compensation and non-service-connected-disability pension purposes) establishes … If this objective standard is met, pension entitlement is established.

Davis v. West

13 Vet. App. 178 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 19, 1999

ANALYSIS A surviving spouse of a qualifying veteran who died of a service-connected disability is entitled to payments of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC). See 38 U.S.C. § 1310 ; Hanna v. … Exposure to Ionizing Radiation A BVA determination about whether death or disability is service connected is a finding of fact subject to the “clearly erroneous” standard of review. See Horowitz v.

Sandra K. Hupp v. R. James Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 342 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 18, 2007

Thus, Dingess is clearly distinguishable from the present matter. … However, where service connection has not been previously established, the DIC claimant must first establish service connection for the cause of the veteran’s death.

Roberson v. Principi

17 Vet. App. 135 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 3, 2003

Judicial review of federal agency actions was initiated in 1946 by the enactment of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and formalized in 1976 when Congress waived sovereign immunity and permitted … Or Congress could adopt the Title VII or the CDA model and either require the district courts to adjudicate veterans claims or, to the same purpose, establish a new trial court or exponentially expand this Court, its judges

Larry D. Ervin v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 318 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 9, 2011

The Board again notes that a noncombat veteran's testimony alone does not qualify as credible supporting evidence of occurrence of an in-service stressor as required by 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). … Our caselaw also establishes that a claim is not finally decided where the appellant files a timely appeal from a Board denial of the claim. See e.g., May v.

Vargas-Gonzalez v. West

12 Vet. App. 321 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 12, 1999

In the instant case, the veteran’s claim for pension is well grounded because he has qualifying wartime service (R. at 17), he has completed the VA pension application as to his income (R. at 426-28), he may have the requisite … The appellant requests that the Court establish a schedule for the Secretary to complete development and readjudieation on remand in accordance with section 302 of the Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act (VBIA), Pub.L.

Brady v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 203 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 17, 1993

Under the law in effect at the time of his discharge, such service, while undeniably hazardous, did not qualify appellant as a “veteran” for purposes of benefits administered by the VA. … Tully’s report provides a plausible basis for such a determination; therefore, we find that the Board’s conclusion on this point is not clearly erroneous, and we will not overturn it. See Gilbert v.

West v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 246 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 24, 2001

As discussed below, the Court's jurisdiction to review this matter is established by 38 U.S.C. § 7252. … Under the Pacheco Order, a claimant may be awarded educational benefits for qualifying courses (taken during the period from January 1982 to June 1985) if it is determined that the claimant is eligible, under the terms of

Crowe v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 238 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 20, 1994

The veteran was found to be physically qualified for discharge. R. at 71-4. … After reviewing the evidence, the Board determined that asthma “clearly and unmistakabl[y] preexisted service and was not aggravated thereby”. R. at 7.