Case law

Larry S. Helmick v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 25, 2021

The process for determining the meaning of statutes and regulations is well established. … from his own funds for purposes of establishing entitlement to accrued benefits"). 69 Deloach v.

Carpenter v. West

11 Vet. App. 140 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 24, 1998

Analysis When a qualifying veteran dies from a service-connected disability, the veteran’s surviving spouse is eligible for DIC. See 38 U.S.C. § 1310 ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.5 (a) (1997). … Where evidence establishes [CUE], the prior decision will be reversed or amended.

Goss v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 109 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 23, 1996

This presumption of service connection is rebutted [wjhere there is affirmative evidence to the contrary, or evidence to establish that an intereurrent injury or disease which is a recognized cause of any of the diseases … United States, 307 F.2d 637, 644 (D.C.Cir.1962) (to qualify as an expert, a person need not be licensed to practice medicine, but just have ‘“special knowledge and skill in diagnosing and treating human ailments’ ” (citation

Johnson v. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 136 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 5, 2016

This factor furthers the commonsense principle that “[f]or purposes of the EAJA, the more clearly established are the governing norms, and the more clearly they dictate the result in favor of the private litigant, the less … , 20 Vet.App. at 192— to establish that the agency’s misconstruction was reasonable.

Peggy L. Quattlebaum v. Eric K. Shinseki

25 Vet. App. 171 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 5, 2012

Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974) ("[W]hen two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective."); Terry … Quattlebaum established her status as a proper accrued benefits claimant.

In re A Proposed Amendment to Rule 26(b)

12 Vet. App. 432 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 24, 1998

Similarly, the Court has stated that the burden is on the appellant to establish that the Board’s fact-finding was clearly erroneous. Zink v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 258, 259 (1997) (per curiam). … 106 F.3d 1577, 1581 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“Although equitable estoppel is available against the government, it is not available to grant a money payment where Congress has not authorized such a payment or the recipient doesn’t qualify

Hudson v. West

13 Vet. App. 470 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 25, 2000

ANALYSIS EAJA is a waiver of sovereign immunity, and its provisions must be strictly construed in the government's favor. See Grivois v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 100, 101 (1994). … The instant case is not similar to Tablazon because here the appellant's March 1993 NOD was clearly a post-VJRA § 402 NOD.

Stephanie L. Watkins v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 2, 2022

ALLEN, Judge: This appeal presents several interesting and important questions concerning how one assesses when a Reserve member of the Armed Forces qualifies as a "veteran" for the purposes of entitlement to VA disability … It is improper for the Board to rely on this clearly incomplete record as evidence, let alone dispositive evidence, that appellant acted in such a manner as to disqualify herself from receiving VA disability benefits.

Robert H. Johnson v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 26, 2025

Johnson qualified for a presumption of herbicide exposure based on his service in Thailand. R. at 239-41. … Therefore, the PACT Act clearly is a liberalizing law as to the expanded presumptions regarding herbicide exposure.

Walter G. Long v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 30, 2020

But Yancy's step-2 discussion and citations clearly contemplate economic effects, not "functional effects" like the dizziness or ear pain mentioned in Doucette. … Although determining what symptoms or functional effects a veteran displays is a factual determination within the Board's purview, see King, 29 Vet.App. at 181 n.6 (refusing to decide "whether determining what qualifies as

Evelyn M. Todd v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 79 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 3, 2014

Todd of the increased benefits and also that he may qualify for VA vocational rehabilitation employment services. … Board determinations as to whether the Secretary has fulfilled the duty to assist are findings of fact subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4); Nolen v.

Neumann v. West

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 21, 2000

Secretary include the period of time following service in the 9 Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Gulf War that such chronic disability must become manifest to qualify … Findings of fact by the BVA are reviewed under a "clearly erroneous" standard. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4).

Karissa Wiggins v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 1, 2025

In my view, the majority is clearly wrong. … Wiggin[s]'s 2021 Board appeal has been delayed" and "address whether [s]ection 7112(b) or other qualifiers allow Ms.

Shawn P. Lacey v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 17, 2019

Except as provided by subsection (k), each veteran who participates in the program established under subsection (a)(1) shall be entitled to up to 12 months of retraining assistance provided by the Secretary … The crux of the dispute, however, focuses on the qualifying 5 language that immediately follows.

Davenport v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 476 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 30, 1995

He attended flight training school in Pensacola, Florida, and Corpus Christi, Texas, and was qualified as a naval flight officer. R. at 3. … a veteran who is already involved in a chapter 31 rehabilitation program (regardless of whether or not he has a “serious employment handicap”) can have the duration of the program extended beyond the 48-month time limit established

Albert P. Blue v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 16, 2018

While recognizing that normally a decision merely remanding a case would not qualify as "some relief on the merits," the U.S. … Cir. 2012). 3 There had been claims that the Federal Circuit's caselaw about what was necessary to qualify as a prevailing party was inconsistent.

Jimmy C. Bonds v. Denis McDonough

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

. §§ 3.307(a)(3) (2022) (one year limit), 3.309(a) (list of qualifying conditions).) He began treatment with VA medical providers in 1999. Mr. … Whether a filing raises an informal claim for benefits is normally a factual inquiry reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard, by which the Court can overturn the finding only if firmly convinced that the Board made

Lanier v. Hines v. Anthony J. Principi

18 Vet. App. 227 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 17, 2004

Relevant Background The appellant had qualifying service in the U.S. Army Reserves from May 1975 to March 1976. R. at 33. … Section 3.105(a) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, provides: Where evidence establishes [CUE], the prior decision will be reversed or amended.

Hezekiah Green, Jr. v. Robert A. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 281 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 24, 2016

Because this case implicates the Secretary’s compliance with Rule 10(d) and the Court clearly has jurisdiction to enforce its own rules, the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether the Secretary’s policies and procedures … Unlike § 1.601(a)(1), there is no requirement in § 1.601(a)(2) that an attorney of record at the Court be accredited by VA to *290 qualify for remote access.

Wilson v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 542 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 21, 1995

However, neither of these statements establishes that his anxiety disorder causes him to be unable to perform his job. … While the appellant’s job may be aggravating his anxiety condition, that issue is not pertinent to the question whether he qualifies for further chapter 31 training under § 21.284(a)(2).