Case law

Vargas-Gonzalez v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 222 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 16, 2001

It is well established that this Court has the authority under the All Writs Act (AWA) to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [its] jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a); see Cox v. … Other Relief Sought Having decided that even though the petitioner has demonstrated a clear right to the writ, he does not qualify for our issuance of one, we must also deny the petition to the extent that he prays

Kilpatrick v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 1 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 8, 2002

Brown, 6 Vet.App. 277 (1994), is "plain on its face" in clearly precluding non-chapters 11 and 13 ancillary benefits (Suppl. Br. at 10). … 13 during hospital treatment, incurred injuries resulting in ankylosis, but excluding from benefits a veteran who suffered a wrongful amputation (or some other non-ankylosis section 1151-qualifying

Trilles v. West

13 Vet. App. 314 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 15, 2000

FARLEY, Judge, with whom NEBEKER, Chief Judge, and IVERS, Judge, join, dissenting: The issue presented in this appeal is governed by clearly defined principles of statutory construction. … of title 38 unless and until they prove that they are *335 qualified.

Maldonado v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 48 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 16, 1993

Furthermore, the VA noted that the record established that his discharge on October 10, 1968, was valid and irrevocable. … This doctrine is limited to those situations where the individual has clearly voluntarily submit *52 ted himself to a change in status from civilian to military. See Norman, supra.

Donald Mathews v. Robert A. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 309 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 14, 2016

Michael Shelton, submitted a letter indicating that pathology reports for the left neck tumor had "not established a definitive diagnosis." R. at 727. Mr. … Mathews also argues that the Board clearly erred in finding that Dr. Lin's January 2014 opinion and October 2014 addendum were adequate for adjudication purposes because the pilot study that Dr.

Frazier Foreman v. David J. Shulkin

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 22, 2018

2010 note diagnosed PTSD but the provider was not recognized by VA as an individual qualified to make such a diagnosis. … I also agree that the Board clearly erred when it denied entitlement to an effective date prior to July 13, 2010, for Mr. Foreman's award of service connection for PTSD.

Odiorne v. Principi

3 Vet. App. 456 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 13, 1992

Captain Ceips gave appellant a physical profile indicating that appellant was “qualified for service” and signed the form. R. at 14. … Court holds that the Board’s Finding of Fact No. 3 that “[ajrthritis of the left knee was not shown in service, at separation, or for more than 15 years following final service separation,” Odiorne, BVA 90-11724, at 10, is clearly

Annette B. Briley v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 196 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 19, 2012

In doing so, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that our authority must be based on what Congress intended and, therefore, did not enlarge our jurisdiction beyond that expressly given to us by Congress. … Our jurisdiction, like that of all federal courts other than the Supreme Court, is established solely by Congress, not the Court. Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. 441, 449 (1850).

Marlesa D. Lynch and Cynthia M. Martinez v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 23, 2018

Whether an issue is reasonably raised by the record is essentially a question of fact, subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. … This document clearly highlights the theory that there was something about the 1969 application that VA should consider as part of adjudicating appellants' claims.

Jeremy Beaudette & Maya Beaudette v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 19, 2021

By that time, the Caregiver Program had been established, under which a veteran's caregiver may receive certain VA benefits. … We must first ask whether the language of the Caregiver Program statute clearly strips the Board of jurisdiction.

Tulingan v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 484 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 24, 1996

FARLEY, Judge, concurring: I concur in the conclusions that there is a plausible basis in the record for the Board’s factual findings and that those findings are not clearly erroneous. … Brown, 7 Vet.App. 561 (1995), which established the route meticulously followed by the Chief Judge in his opinion today.

Kenneth B. Mason v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 83 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 28, 2011

Trawick's motion for reconsideration), and the well-established fact that finality depends on context. See Clay and Stanley, both supra; see also Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1357 n.20 (Fed. … Because the concept of finality is context dependent, Stanley, supra, and an overly restrictive application of section 5904(c)(1) is inconsistent with the purpose behind establishing the one-year period, we should address

Paul W. Hyatt v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 211 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 22, 2008

. § 5121 allows qualified survivors of the veteran to seek payment of accrued benefits owed to that veteran at the time of the veteran's death. Seymour v. Principi, 245 F.3d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2001). … Hyatt's claim, it is clearly possible that if the court-martial records reveal the nature and extent of Mr. Hyatt's wound, the Board might find that his lumbar spine disability was service connected.

Jeffrey T. Petitti v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 415 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 28, 2015

Petitti underwent a VA infectious, immune, and nutritional disabilities examination. R. at 1366-70. He reported that after a recent change in medication, his symptoms were "stable." R. at 1367. … The Court reversed the Board's finding as clearly erroneous and ordered that Ms.

Byron S. Cox v. R. James Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 563 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 17, 2007

Under that regulation, "competent medical evidence means evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions." Id. … Cox does not assert that the examiner was not competent, but rather argues that VA did not establish his competence. However, the Board is entitled to assume the competence of a VA examiner. See Hilkert v.

Dennis W. Cogburn v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 205 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 13, 2010

Cogburn and his representative stated clearly that Mr. … The requirement that VA sympathetically read a veteran’s pleadings was qualified further in that the Federal Circuit held that it applies “with respect to all pro se pleadings.” Szemrgj v.

Harth v. West

14 Vet. App. 1 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 19, 2000

He underwent some additional training to qualify for duty and during this time was under fire. He remembers this incident well as one of his key incidents. … See id. *6 at 1261 (describing the “burden of persuasion for establishing a well[-]grounded claim [as] unique, and uniquely low”).

Charlotte A. Bowling and Kevin D. Appling v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 29, 2021

And the Court has had, since its inception, the obligation to "hold unlawful and set aside . . . regulations issued or adopted by [VA] found to be . . . contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity." 38 … Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 530, 532 (1992) (holding that, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.203, a service department finding as to qualifying service for VA benefits is binding on VA).

Valasco v. West

12 Vet. App. 172 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 4, 1999

If that claim had already been placed into appellate status by *174 an NOD filed in December 1985, it is clearly established that a second NOD could not be filed as to an issue already in appellate status. 1 Moreover, the … I believe that such a doctrine should apply against the sovereign when it has waived its immunity against suit, as has been done here, see 38 U.S.C. § 511 (b)(4), 7252-7269, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Irwin, 498

Segundo Mariano v. Anthony J. Principi

17 Vet. App. 305 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 22, 2003

Meaning of DC 5201 The question becomes, therefore, whether flexion not above shoulder level qualifies for a 20% disability rating under DC 5201. … regulatory definitions and limited (albeit not entirely clear) regulatory history as contained in Federal Register, Court interpreted requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7005, 7007 (2001), where Secretary had failed to establish