Case law

James L. Parrish v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 391 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 22, 2011

Second, Veterans Benefits Administration’s M21-MR establishes the procedure for adjudicating claims under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311 . … The Board’s Decision is Adequately Explained and is Not Clearly Erroneous Mr.

Willie S. Johnson v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 19, 2018

Caselaw establishes distinct requirements for successive rating criteria. … You can't tell whether the observer is correct, or not clearly erroneous, without knowing how the observer defined "tall."

Robert J. Bria v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 15, 2021

The facts of this case, however, do not require us to determine in general what may qualify as loss of use. … The Secretary urges the Court to adopt for the purposes of section 1114(k) the definition of "loss of use" that the Court established in Jensen v.

Cathell v. Brown

8 Vet. App. 539 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 13, 1996

Gillespy as to why he found the appellant unemployable, and for what type of employment the appellant would qualify. See Appellant’s Brief (Br.) at 3, 10, 19. … Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 93 (1990) (if “the record before the BVA [is] clearly inadequate [a] remand is required”).

Timberlake v. Gober

14 Vet. App. 122 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 15, 2000

In addition, the Board noted that in order for the appellant to qualify for DIC the veteran must have been in receipt of a 100% rating for 4 10 years prior to his death … DIC Based on Service Connection for Cause of Veteran's Death Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1310, DIC is paid to a surviving spouse of a qualifying veteran who died from a service-connected disability. See Darby v.

Dolan v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 358 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 4, 1996

1953, and although the report from his prein-duetion examination noted that the appellant had a “history of [an] ulcer,” the examiner reported that the condition was not verified in March 1951 and found the appellant to be qualified … Accordingly, since the remaining SMRs establish these same facts, they are cumulative of the evidence that was considered by the RO in 1955.

Sally A. Burkhart v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 3, 2019

If anything, this predecessor statute's language even more clearly excludes section 1151 beneficiaries than the current language does. … She first must establish that she is entitled to prevail. The injunction can't do that.

Wells v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 293 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 7, 1996

Such benefits “are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them,” and are the equivalent of property for due process purposes. … Both appellants are precluded, by the terms of the relevant statutory provisions, from qualifying for the benefit sought.

Shaw v. Gober

10 Vet. App. 498 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 6, 1997

Section 7263(d) establishes the scope of such review by providing that the Court “may order a reduction in the fee called for in the agreement if it finds that the fee is excessive or unreasonable” and prohibits further judicial … Section 506 prohibits payment from the two sources only for the “same work”; it does not cover the situation where the work is clearly different.

David A. Mays v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 256 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 22, 2012

Since the veteran did not enter active military service prior to January 1, 1978, he does not have qualifying service for educational benefits under Title 38, United States Code, Chapter 34, and his claim remains denied … The Board found that "the Veteran can only establish entitlement to benefits available at the time that he served." R. at 146.

Combee v. Principi

4 Vet. App. 78 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 19, 1993

(Hypogammaglobulinemia is an immunodeficiency disease, “[a] group of diverse conditions caused by one or more immune system defects, and characterized clinically by increased susceptibility to infections with consequent severe … “A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”

Gene R. Schertz v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 362 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 26, 2013

. § 1151, Congress mandated that (a) [c]ompensation . . . shall be awarded for a qualifying additional disability . . . in the same manner as if such additional disability . . . were service-connected. … As both parties agree, the Secretary clearly adopted an objective standard based on the "reasonable health care provider."

Kenneth B. Mason v. R. James Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 279 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 16, 2006

This is clearly an administrative error on the part of the VA. The VA is, therefore, obligated to correct the error." R. at 145. … The fee agreement clearly contemplates that the attorney receive 20% of past-due benefits plus some or all of the EAJA fees awarded by the Court.

Daniel D. Barry v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 3, 2022

Though appellant raised this argument for the first time on appeal, it is clearly appropriate for us to consider this argument. … The regulation doesn't clearly answer the question we face.

Livesay v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 165 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 30, 2001

Therefore, in the view of NOVA, the effective date of claims “reopened after final adjudication” or “for increase of compensation ... shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found,” and is not subject to the qualifying … See Fugo, supra; see also Cook, supra (to establish CUE, it is incumbent on the veteran to establish entitlement to benefits as of the date of the claim being challenged as CUE); Bustos v.

Thurber v. Brown

5 Vet. App. 119 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 14, 1993

diagnosis of arthritis, analysis of signs and symptoms Page 54 Synovial fluid Pages 108-110 Radiology of rheumatic diseases, ankylosing spondylitis, syno-viocytes Page 257 Structure and function of sy-noviocytes Page 287 Immune … The Supreme Court has noted that veterans benefits, entitlement to which is established by service to country at great personal risk, are “akin to Social Security benefits.” Walters v.

Beraud v. Shinseki

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 9, 2013

The Board determined that the February 1990 RO decision was final,4 and the Court is not persuaded that this determination is clearly erroneous. See Hilkert v. … Peake, the Federal Circuit reversed this Court and held that the Board had erred by failing to seek service department records that might establish an earlier effective date of benefits. 511 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed.

McNaron v. West

12 Vet. App. 334 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 14, 1999

At that time, the Court held as follows: The appellant has failed to establish any special circumstances that would justify the recall of the Court’s mandate. … Clearly, had the Court known of the ministerial error that caused the Board to mail its decision to the incorrect address, the emphasized statement in the above passage from McNaron would not have been accurate.

Robinson v. Mansfield

21 Vet. App. 545 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 29, 2008

The Federal Circuit did not qualify VA’s obligation to assist a claimant, nor does the Schroeder holding turn on the procedural posture of the case. … Among other things, the VCAA removed the requirement of former § 5107(a) that a claimant first establish a well-grounded *560 claim before VA was to begin providing assistance.

Bruce W. Pierce v. Anthony J. Principi

18 Vet. App. 440 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 28, 2004

The Secretary in his brief discusses "severe economic inadaptability" in terms of the inability to work (Br. at 7), but nothing in DC 8100 requires that the claimant be completely unable to work in order to qualify for … See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b) (2002) (providing that "[i]t is the established policy of [VA] that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall