Case law

Nicholas Ribaudo v. R. James Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 137 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 13, 2007

Statutorily as to forum, we clearly indicated in our decision granting Mr. … To determine the likelihood that any ruling of law will survive appeal, the best objective test is the degree to which it is rooted in well-established law.

William W. De Beaord , Jr. v. Anthony J. Principi

18 Vet. App. 357 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 14, 2004

Regarding the second sentence in § 4.79, it appears to indicate only that a veteran can qualify for aid and attendance, rather than specifying a rating percentage, if the visual field in both eyes is reduced to 5 degrees … Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that the Board's denial of an extraschedular TDIU rating was clearly erroneous.

Jordan v. Principi

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 26, 2002

[; w]hen the predicate evidence is established that triggers the presumption, the further evidentiary gap is filled by the presumption"). … 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.

Sylvia A. Ventris v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 31, 2021

DIC Having established that Ms. Ventris's April 1958 remarriage is not a bar to recognition as the surviving spouse of the veteran, we turn to her eligibility for DIC benefits. … Ventris, by virtue of her remarriage, does not qualify as a surviving spouse for VA death pension purposes and will affirm that portion of the Board decision.

Gerard Cullen v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 74 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 13, 2010

This regulation clearly indicates that only one disability rating per diagnostic code may be assigned and that it will be based on the overall disability picture. … There, the Secretary conceded, and the Court agreed, that the Board had erred by requiring that the veteran have both a diastolic murmur with EKG manifestations and a definitely enlarged heart to qualify for a 30% disability

Margreit Castellano v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 146 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 22, 2011

In Hayes, the Court noted that although section 5121(a) permits only evidence in the file at date of death, section 5121(c) “appear[ed] to contradict, or at least qualify, that provision” by permitting a claimant to submit … Given this ambiguity, the Court stated that “the Secretary ha[d] wide latitude in establishing department policy as to what postdate-of-death evidence may be considered.” Id.

Felix Paul Phillips v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 30, 2024

If you don't qualify for a 100% rating but you can't work, TDIU may be an option. Thus, the Board needed to, and did, consider TDIU when it rated Mr. Phillips's disabilities. … But the majority nonetheless uses his unique and complicated set of facts to establish a dramatic change of approach to TDIU under the AMA.

Gary Dean Jackson v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 27, 2023

Jackson began by arguing that DC 7913 is unclear because it does not clearly say how VA should consider the use of medication. … That is, to qualify for the next higher rating, a veteran must meet the requirements of the lower rating and then meet whatever other specifications the higher rating requires.

Dudley A. King v. David J. Shulkin

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 21, 2017

Thus, a veteran must show that all the elements have been established to trigger a referral for consideration of an extraschedular rating. … The Secretary's contention about Doucette is clearly wrong.

Michael H. Jones v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 382 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 25, 2010

that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies; and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent … Finally, the examiner should clearly identify precisely what facts cannot be determined.

Am Anda Jane Wolfe and P Eter E. Boerschinger Individually and on Behalf of Others Sim Ilarly Situated v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 13, 2021

Cir. 1999) ("As a general rule, an appellate court will not hear on appeal issues that were not clearly raised in the proceedings below."). … In sum, we fail to see a potential subset of Wolfe class members who, in fact, would qualify as "expired claimants."

Pedro P. Del Rosario v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 399 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 5, 2009

4  receiving contentions, oral arguments, and testimony and may be held before the Director, Compensation and Pension Service [(C&P)], Washington, D.C., or before qualified … The Board's determinations regarding forfeiture are reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. Flores, 19 Vet.App. at 523. A.

Alexander A. Medlin v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 6, 2026

"[I]n order for a finding of material fact made by [the Board] to be set aside, this Court must conclude that the finding is 'clearly erroneous.'" Id. at 52. … The 11  Case: 24-3304 Page: 12 of 22 Filed: 04/06/2026 qualifying nature of this language renders the pertinent findings and conclusions

Robert M. Euzebio v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 22, 2019

that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the … What does it take to establish such a relationship?

Sondel v. West

13 Vet. App. 213 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 18, 1999

He was determined to be “mentally AND PHYSICALLY QUALIFIED FOR SERVICE IN the army of the united states”. R. at 15. … Section 3.105(a) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, provides: Where evidence establishes [CUE], the prior decision will be reversed or amended.

Morton v. West

13 Vet. App. 205 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 28, 1999

The above criteria seem sensible ones to apply in attempting to determine whether the Manual M21-1 provisions at issue in Morton qualify as substantive rules, especially in view of the Foreword to the Manual M21-1, which … That is, the provision clearly was mandatory and not a matter left to the adjudicator’s discretion. Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.

Abbott v. Brown

5 Vet. App. 197 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 8, 1993

Because appellant’s service-connected disability does not meet the schedular criteria, he does not qualify for a total disability rating under section 4.16(a). … The Board correctly concluded that appellant did not qualify for a total disability rating on an extraschedular basis under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b) either.

Marvin Robinson v. James B. Peake

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 3, 2008

That conclusion is not clearly erroneous so we must affirm. For all the reasons stated above, based on the evidence contained in the record, as well as Mr. … 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.

Shoffner v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 208 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 30, 2002

The Court's jurisdiction to review this matter is established by 38 U.S.C. § 7252. I. FACTS Veteran Shoffner served in the U.S. … Hendrix's independent medical opinion (IMO) likely could not qualify here because, even if there were an outline, he did not conduct an examination of the veteran. R. at 596-98.

Kessel v. West

13 Vet. App. 9 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 20, 1999

The only other available SMRs consist of his entrance examination, his dental records, and immunization records. R. at 26, 28, 30-34, 179. … This Court must affirm findings of fact made by the Board unless they are found to be “clearly erroneous.” 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(4).