Case law

Thayer v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 204 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 4, 2001

We cannot agree that the fact that there is an additional hurdle (the substantial-justification requirement) facing a prevailing party under the EAJA affects whether an applicant qualifies as a prevailing party under the … , supra, 1 There, in the underlying merits appeal, the Court dismissed the appealed claim after the parties had submitted to the Court a motion to dismiss that contained within it a settlement agreement with terms that “clearly

Rocco v. Perciavalle v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 3, 2021

Cir. 2001), that pain alone could not qualify as a disability. Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1365-66.17 Nothing like that happened in connection with the knee regulations at issue here. Most importantly, Mr. … [Perciavalle] has no recourse for appeal through a CUE [motion]; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(e) clearly proscribes Mr.

Watson v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 189 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 11, 1993

In the instant case, therefore, since the veteran’s widow filed her DIC claim on December 11,1989, the veteran’s pancreatitis could qualify for direct service connection, under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), 3.304(a) (1992), if … See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (1992) (service connection may be granted for disease diagnosed after discharge, when the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service).

Donald E. Zeglin v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 28, 2018

Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 830-33 (1985) (noting that an agency's decision not to take action is presumptively immune from judicial review, but the presumption may be rebutted where the statute has provided guidelines for the … The fact that VA had established internal procedures for verifying reimbursement rates from third-party payors for only a portion of the relevant period during which Mr.

James Martin Witkowski v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 21, 2025

Even if both parties rightly disclaim a ruling—adherence to our established precedent "restrains judicial hubris and reminds us to respect the judgment of those who have grappled with important questions in the past." … A regulatory requirement within the VA appeals system seems to qualify as a rule less deserving of reliance; veterans are not more likely to lose their property interest in VA benefits because the Board could hear extraschedular

Gerald A. Lechliter v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 3, 2024

Prior to July 2022, § 14.629 provided that certain persons working under the supervision of accredited persons "may qualify for read-only access to pertinent [VBA] automated claims records as described in §§ 1.600 through … As for jurisdiction, the Green Court concluded that, "[b]ecause 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

Fritz v. West

13 Vet. App. 190 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 23, 1999

The Court, however, will deny that motion as moot based on the remedy applied as to part II.B.l., below, which will clearly provide the appellant with such notification. 1. … Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims)], based upon the criteria as established by 28 U.S.C. § 2412”. Fee Agreement at 3.

Lasovick v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 141 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 11, 1994

In Spencer , the Court explained very clearly when a previously and finally denied claim may be reviewed based upon an intervening change in a law or regulation. … The Los Alamos laboratory exposure estimates were submitted on the issue of whether the veteran qualified as a “radiation-exposed veteran” under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1112 (c), the recently enacted law.

Mark R. Lippman v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 243 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 22, 2009

See 38 U.S.C. § 14.63(c) (2009). 12 Scates clearly governs the situation where an attorney is discharged by a claimant prior to the initial decision on a claim. … Swinger's in- service stressors to establish initial entitlement to service connection (Appellant's Supp. Mem. at 5-6); 6. the amount and nature of work Mr.

Harriet H. Kriner v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 25, 2023

Kriner’s March 2015 letter doesn’t qualify as an intent to file. Second, in October 2015, VA notified Mr. … Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 40, 48 (2010) (“The Board, not the Court, is responsible for assessing the credibility and weight to be given to evidence, and the Court may overturn the Board’s assessments only if they are clearly

Barclay v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 161 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 3, 1993

Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140 (1991), this Court established that the BVA must perform a two-step analysis when the veteran seeks to reopen a claim based upon new evidence. … Iannone’s January and April 1990 letters qualify as “new” in that they are noncumulative, and “material” in that they are relevant and probative *168 on the issue of whether appellant’s MS was manifested within the seven

Green v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 111 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 26, 1997

. [§ ] 410(b) is not established”, and “[b]asie entitlement to benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 [education benefits] is established.” R. at 338-39. … See Spencer, 4 Vet.App. at 290 (“use of the words ‘pursuant to’ clearly indicates that the benefits of this provision adhere only where the ‘Act or administrative issue’ is one which provides a substantive basis for establishing

Sharon A. Westphal v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 22, 2026

In her initial brief, appellant argued that "VA waived its opportunity to contest whether the dyspareunia is capable of resulting in the loss of use of a creative organ" and that "if it is unclear whether [her] disorder qualifies … Indeed, the Secretary expressly concedes that the Board "clearly assumed" that appellant's "vagina was a creative organ." Secretary's Br. at 13.

Hicks v. Principi

4 Vet. App. 2 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 5, 1993

. § 3.321(b)(2) (1991), certain VA officials may approve a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes on an extra-schedular basis where “the evidence of record establishes that an applicant for pension who … Therefore, the issue is whether all of the veteran’s conditions render him sufficiently disabled to qualify for non-service-connected pension on a schedular or extra-schedular basis.

Larry G. Tyrues v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 166 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 2, 2009

Ty-rues could establish entitlement to service connection based on either of his disabilities. The law clearly commands the determination that Mr. Tyrues has two separate claims. … Unlike Schroeder , which involved separate theories for establishing a single claim, this case involves two separate factual bases for establishing entitlement to service connection for two different disabilities.

Pat A. Hatfield v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 28, 2023

Brown, 10 Vet.App. 166, 170 (1997) ("If the RO's interpretation of the plain meaning of the law was clearly and unmistakably erroneous . . . then there may be a basis for a CUE [motion]. … Board's reasoning, focusing principally on developments after 1980 in the implementing regulations and caselaw that demonstrate that the law changed concerning whether the failure to obtain a patient's informed consent qualified

Jeffrey K. Lile v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 11, 2024

The Secretary argues that the distinction between felony and misdemeanor is irrelevant because § 3.14 does not apply where there is no qualifying service listed on appellant's DD-214. See Secretary's Br. at 19. … That is, the Board did not (or at least did not clearly) decide whether appellant's voided enlistment came within subsection (a) or subsection (b). We'll return to the Board's discussion in a moment.

Bobby R. Sharp v. David J. Shulkin

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 6, 2017

Sharp argues that the Board clearly erred in accepting the September 2015 examination as adequate, clearly erred in finding substantial compliance with the November 2014 remand instructions, and offered inadequate reasons … But, as discussed above, Ardison did not establish such a rule.

Lillie M. Wingard v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 334 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 16, 2013

Cir. 1990) ("[E]ven when the plain meaning of the statutory language in question would resolve the issue before the court, the legislative history should usually be examined at least 'to determine whether there is a clearly … Additionally, as noted by the Secretary, recognition by VA that a veteran has a service-connected condition, albeit noncompensable, can serve to qualify the veteran for certain VA medical care and contract medical care under

Marvin O. Johnson v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 237 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 27, 2013

Johnson has not shown that the Board's finding under step two of Thun is clearly erroneous based on the record as a whole. Because Mr. … Pertinent hereto, this same regulation explicitly authorized submission of meritorious cases for consideration of an extraschedular rating when the case did not qualify for a total disability rating under the rating schedule