Case law

Ryan v. West

13 Vet. App. 151 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 15, 1999

The burden of establishing the mailing of the decision to the veteran’s representative in accordance with section 7104(e) fell upon the Secretary. Id. … The Court rejected that argument stating that it “has applied Kamas to changes in process or procedures established by statute.” Dippel, 12 Vet.App. at 473 .

Black v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 279 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 4, 1997

The record throughout this period does not contain a qualified medical opinion indicating that his injuries and disabilities may have caused his heart problems. … First, the Court’s precedent clearly treats as competent a medical professional’s opinion on medical nexus and other medical questions regardless of whether the professional has “special qualification or expertise” in the

George D. Prewitt, Jr. v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 5, 2022

Stern, supra at 1062; accord id. at 1062 ("Deciding whom to prosecute, what taxes to assess, what grants to disburse, which veterans qualify for benefits—these, and perhaps most, decisions of the executive require applying … One Representative supported the compromise bill to "guarantee the veteran actual judicial review of all VA decisions" and guarantee accountability in that the "Constitution clearly defined the role of the three branches

Kirwin v. Brown

8 Vet. App. 148 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 10, 1995

Claims Reviewed Under “Clearly Erroneous” Standard Once a claim passes the well-groundedness hurdle and the Board adjudicates that claim, the Court reviews the Board’s findings of fact regarding the claim under a “clearly … conditions or of employment progress, income earned, and prospects of economic rehabilitation, which demonstrates affirmatively the veteran’s capacity to pursue the vocation or occupation for which the training is intended to qualify

Robert L. Stinson v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 24, 2025

And that is all that is required to establish eligibility for an EAJA award. A. Mr. … In conferring authority to review veterans benefits decisions to two different federal appellate courts, Congress clearly envisioned complementary but nonetheless distinct roles for this Court and the Federal Circuit.

Tallman v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 453 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 17, 1995

Speaker, since the intent of Congress was clearly to protect the existing benefits of those presently in, or committed to the armed services, the academy classes of 1977 and 1978 should clearly be included and I ask all our … Speaker, since the intent of Congress was clearly to protect the existing benefits of those in, or committed to, the Armed Services, as of December 31, 1976, the academy classes of 1977 and 1978 should clearly be included

David L. Hornick v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 50 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 20, 2010

Principi, this Court considered whether a veteran qualified for chapter 19 life insurance benefits based on his receipt of section 1151 compensation. 16 Vet.App. 253 (2002), aff'd, 349 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003). … Testimony preceding the passage of the 1924 Act established the drafters' intent to compensate disabled veterans who suffered a harm that was not service connected to ensure that veterans were receiving all benefits to which

Margaret Laska v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 6, 2024

The Board's determinations as to the appropriate degree of disability, including entitlement to SMC, are findings of fact subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4); see Breniser v. … The foregoing establishes three basic eligibility requirements for SMC(t): a veteran must (1) need regular aid and attendance for the residuals of service-connected TBI, (2) be ineligible for SMC(r)(2), and (3) need some

Paul L. Ollis v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 405 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 28, 2015

Based on the ROP, the Board’s finding is plausible and not clearly erroneous. See Gilbert v. … See id. at 1297 (noting “an absolute right of benefits, to qualified individuals” (emphasis added)); see also Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v.

Colayong v. West

12 Vet. App. 524 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 17, 1999

The veteran argued in a December 1994 letter to the RO that the medical evidence of record established that his disabilities had worsened, and he stated that his disabilities prohibited him from securing a driver’s license … The private physician who opined that the veteran is totally disabled clearly, as evidenced by the physician’s statements, considered non[-]service-connected disabilities. R. at 12.

Hasty v. West

13 Vet. App. 230 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 9, 1999

Well-Grounded Claim DIC is paid to the surviving spouse, children, or parents of a qualifying veteran who dies from a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1310 . … In this case, the Court finds that the appellant’s claim is not well grounded because she has failed to provide any medical evidence which establishes a relationship between any of the causes of her husband’s death and his

Kevin J. Rosenberg v. Gordon H. Mansfield

22 Vet. App. 1 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 28, 2007

The appellant argues that he received no financial assistance “while participating in an ROTC program” during the 1992-1993 SY; therefore, he qualifies for the eligibility exception. Br. at 5. … Section 2107 of title 10, U.S.Code, establishes a “[fjinancial assistance program for specially selected members.”

Charles F. Evington v. Anthony J. Principi

18 Vet. App. 331 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 13, 2004

For work performed by an attorney, fees "shall not be awarded in excess of $125 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified … Stewart's work is clearly less than the $125-hourly-cap-plus-COLA EAJA statutory rate. See VBA § 403; see also McCracken, supra; cf. Sandoval and Elcyzyn, both supra.

Leonard Beraud v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 313 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 17, 2013

The Board determined that the February 1990 RO decision was final,5 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.

Timothy J. Jordan v. Anthony J. Principi

17 Vet. App. 261 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 24, 2003

The clearly expressed purpose of the 1943 amendment to the wartime presumption was to extend this presumption to veterans of World War II. See H.R. Rep. … § 3.304(b) (1999), as the Secretary indicates, clearly calls for the use of such medical evidence.

Lorenzano v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 446 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 30, 1993

However, qualifying service is limited to actual voyages (see DVB Circular 21-88-7, Par. 5a), which are certified as February 18 to May 10 and June 12 to 22,1945. … This diagnosis was clearly not during a period of active service.

Hugh D. Cox, Jr. v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 12, 2021

The Statutory and Regulatory Framework Well-established principles govern how we determine the meaning of statutes and regulations. … Here, section 5904 creates a public right in the form of the direct payment of attorney's fees and spells out various conditions required to qualify for such entitlement.

Donovan v. Gober

10 Vet. App. 404 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 29, 1997

By its action today, the Court effectively grants a license to the BVA that permits it, by merely stating that it has reviewed all the evidence of record and decided a claim de novo, to immunize from review for CUE a prior … that RO decision, one made without the participation of the claimant and without his having been advised of the implication of that action. 11 This is exactly the kind of unilateral Board action that the fair-process rules established

Jonathan D. Fithian v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 146 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 9, 2010

I might be able to do might daily duties but that is because I have become immune to the pain. … See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1001 (2010) (establishing the criteria for a motion for reconsideration).

Morris v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 286 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 6, 1997

In the appellant’s motion for panel review pursuant to Rule 35 of this Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, he has alleged that this judge is “clearly biased toward [his] case” and “prejudiced toward [him].” … Without any comment the initial judge is Judge Farley, a career government employee that is clearly biased toward my case.