Case law

Pekular v. Mansfield

21 Vet. App. 495 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 31, 2007

Furthermore, in order to obtain any accrued benefits, the claimant must establish both her own status as a qualified accrued benefits recipient, and the deceased claimant’s underlying entitlement to benefits. … Applicability of Padgett III At the outset, we must state clearly that, inasmuch as the Court has held that the rule articulated in Landicho is jurisdictional, such a holding has been overruled in cases where an eligible

Grantham v. Brown

8 Vet. App. 228 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 19, 1995

Brown clearly established that “[tjhere can be only one valid NOD as to a particular claim, extending to all subsequent RO and BVA adjudications on the same claim until a final RO or BVA decision has been rendered in that … After the treatment for arthritis, the veteran was found qualified for “duty with limitations” and assigned “[c]ode C: no heavy lifting or prolonged walking with pack”. R. at 15.

Bernier v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 434 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 17, 1995

We agree with the Secretary that §§ 3033(a)(1) and 3681(b)(1) clearly reflect Congress’ intention to preclude concurrent receipt of benefits under both chapter 31 and chapter 30. … Thus, he is seeking only the opportunity to choose between two educational programs for his period of schooling from January 1989 to *438 April 1, 1991, both of which he was qualified for.

Billy D. McCarroll v. Robert A. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 267 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 7, 2016

United States, 498 U.S. 103, 109 , 111 S.Ct. 461 , 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990) (reiterating “the established principle that a court should ‘give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute’ ” (quoting United States … To qualify for a 10% evaluation under DC 7101, a veteran must satisfy one of three alternatives: first, current diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more; second, current systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more; or

Charles R. Coley v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 5, 2020

party in litigation against the Government file an EAJA application within 30 days of judgment is not jurisdictional, it is an important litigation event crafted as part of the Government's decision to waive its sovereign immunity … Under 38 U.S.C. § 7264(a), this Court clearly has the authority to interpret its rules of practice and procedure.27 We conclude that the appellant's opposition to the Secretary's motion is unconvincing and that the Secretary's

Catherine Roberson v. Eric K. Shinseki

22 Vet. App. 358 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 4, 2009

Although these conditions are medical symptoms readily observable by a layperson, the appellant is not qualified to testify as to the etiological significance of these symptoms. See Barr, supra. … It is well established that the Board need not discuss all of the evidence of record so long as it addresses the relevant evidence. See Dela Cruz v.

Joseph Labruzza and Randall G. McBride v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 24, 2024

In fact, the Secretary previously conceded that the cited resources "fall short of establishing that the term has an established meaning such that it qualifies as a term of art." Arline, No. 18-0765, Secretary's Supp. … And, of course, the income that a veteran earns from employment must be relatively low to qualify as "in a protected environment."

Salahudin Majeed v. R. James Nicholson

19 Vet. App. 525 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 9, 2006

See 10 U.S.C. § 1174a(g) ("Subsections (e) through (h) . . . of section 1174 of this title shall apply in the administration of programs established under this section."). … Section 1174(h)(2) provides that a veteran who has received separation pay under sections 1174 or 1174a, and thereafter qualifies for disability compensation pay, shall have deducted from his disability compensation pay an

Dale R. Shipley v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 458 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 30, 2011

The regulation also provides a nonexhaustive list of qualifying records, including “[s]ervice records that are related to a claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran … ,] which established a credible stressor.” R. at 70.

Moyer v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 289 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 8, 1992

However, the facts here clearly show that appellant’s “employment was only occasional, intermittent, tryout or unsuccessful, or eventually terminated on account of the disability, [and, therefore], present unemployability … Appellant notes that the “disability rating of a qualified veteran who begins to engage in a substantially gainful occupation ... may not be reduced on the basis of the veteran having secured and followed a substantially

Stanley L. Davis v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 18, 2021

The regional office (RO) denied the claim a few months thereafter, finding that the condition with which he was diagnosed in service records—adjustment disorder— didn't qualify as a disability for VA purposes. … problems (variously described as adjustment disorder, PTSD, nervous breakdown, and depression), the RO found no evidence that they were incurred in or aggravated 2 Lupus is a disease in which the body's immune

Thomas P. Chotta v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 80 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 11, 2008

Brown, 6 Vet.App. 465, 469 (1994) (lay testimony competent to establish presence of observable symptoms); Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 283, 288 (1994). … The Court is not persuaded that the Board clearly erred in finding that all the evidence regarding the appellant's claim has been obtained and developed.

Marcos Greenidge v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 31, 2024

He did not receive a remand from this Court that either clearly called for further VA proceedings or materially altered his legal relationship vis-à-vis the Secretary. … And in explaining why this is so, we take cognizance of a principle firmly established in Halpern II but not always observed in our caselaw—that our EAJA jurisdiction isn't defeated by a conclusion that the Board issued an

Quarles v. Derwinski

3 Vet. App. 129 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 19, 1992

It stated that his symptoms, “disc space narrowing, spurring, a left-sided limp, nerve root irritation and guarded motion did not qualify for more than a 10% disability evaluation”. Ibid. … The Court reviews questions of fact using the “clearly erroneous” standard of review. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(4) (formerly § 4061) and Gilbert v.

William A. Forcier v. R. James Nicholson

19 Vet. App. 414 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 25, 2006

Giffen's diagnosis was clearly erroneous. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4); Wood, 1 Vet. App. at 193; Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 52. … Forcier failed to meet the necessary diagnostic criteria, even assuming the existence of a qualifying stressor, and because a medical diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder is necessary to establish service connection

Angel S. Nieves-Rodriguez v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 295 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 1, 2008

This Court has noted that while this statutory language is permissive, "clearly it would not permit the Board to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in not crediting a claimant's medical evidence." Kowalski v. … Application of Reliable Principles and Methods That the medical expert is suitably qualified and sufficiently informed are threshold considerations; most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its

Smith v. Principi

17 Vet. App. 168 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 10, 2003

However, the medical evidence clearly establishes that the veteran's tinnitus is not persistent. Persistent is defined as insistently repetitive or continuous, tenacious, or enduring. … The Secretary stated: The evaluation for tinnitus . . . currently requires that the condition be "persistent" in order to qualify for a 10 percent evaluation.

Carroll B. Westfall v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 341 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 28, 2015

One of the challenges of this Court, from its inception, has been to encourage qualified professionals to represent veterans in their appeals to the Court. … Encouragement has taken the form of establishing an independent pro bono program managed by the Legal Services Corporation (see P.L. 102-229, December 12, 1991, 105 Stat 1701) and the provision in 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(2)(F

Woods v. Gober

14 Vet. App. 214 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 15, 2000

In October 1991, he submitted a letter from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that indicated that he had qualified for disability benefits as of October 1987. R. at 342-45. … The Court reviews BVA findings of fact using the “clearly erroneous” standard of review set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(4).

James P. Willen v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 21, 2025

And they also establish that, particularly with cases like Cardoza, the Court needs to look at what the Board's actions effectively do, not just what the Board said. See id. … Willen qualifies for a higher rating—so it's material. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Thus, we can conclude that the Board clearly erred when it concluded that Mr.