Case law

Jack L. Stover v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 11, 2022

for this consideration.42 The Board found that appellant did not qualify for the "special consideration" and thus had not established he was exposed to herbicides at Takhli RTAFB.43 Thereafter, appellant appealed the Board's … The appellant, in his brief, initially argued that the Board clearly erred in finding that the appellant did not serve near the perimeter. Appellant's Brief at 9-21.

Donald A. Dallman v. Robert L. Wilkie

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

Following extensive procedural development, the Board in the decision on appeal stated that all the medical opinions of record were adequate, provided by qualified medical professionals, and predicated on a full reading of … "Whether a medical opinion is adequate is a finding of fact, which this Court reviews under the 'clearly erroneous' standard." D'Aries v.

Robert v. Posey v. Eric K. Shinseki

23 Vet. App. 406 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 23, 2010

a business record is reliable only where "it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the [offered record]," and only when that regular practice is attested to by "the custodian of the record or other qualified … Should this change take place, whether by policy or by statute, it would further assist claimants if any letter that denied reconsideration clearly explained how and why the case was treated as a motion to reconsider.

Myers v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 228 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 13, 2002

The application must clearly identify the benefit sought. … Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-45 (1984) (establishing that where statute does not directly address precise question at issue, Court should follow agency regulation as long as "based on a permissible construction of the

Zimick v. West

11 Vet. App. 45 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 29, 1998

. § 17.54 , that a qualifying telephone call was made within 72 hours after an emergency admittance, such authorization would be of no consequence because this veteran still would not be entitled to reimbursement under 38 … Since resolution of this issue requires the Court to review the Board’s factual findings, the Court reviews the Board’s decision under the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Gilbert v.

Rios-Collins v. Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 104 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 27, 2006

To that end, I note that the Supreme Court in Irwin, stated, in pertinent part: A waiver of sovereign immunity "cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed." United States v. … Rios In order to establish that he timely mailed his NOA, Mr.

Daniel E. Abbey v. Anthony J. Principi

17 Vet. App. 282 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 24, 2003

Stewart is well qualified." Suppl. Mem. at 8-9. … The report of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Explanatory Statement of the two Committees on Veterans' Affairs on the compromise agreement ultimately enacted as the VBA both evidence clearly that the congressional

Briddell v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 267 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 23, 2002

A review of the remand order in this case reveals that the Court clearly did not recognize any error. … Indeed, why else would the Court in Sumner have established the test as "a court remand predicated upon administrative error"? Id. at 264.

Alfred W. Vahey v. R. James Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 208 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 21, 2006

Accordingly, the parties clearly believed that the fate of Mr. Vahey's appeal would turn solely on the correctness of the determinative ruling of law in whichever pending case first reached that issue. … If that decision is not sufficient to establish a material change in the relationship of the parties for purposes of prevailing-party status, then we have set the bar too high.

In re the Fee Agreement of Stanley

9 Vet. App. 203 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 27, 1996

It clearly did not, and the appellants so conceded in their brief. … Following the enactment of the VJRA and the establishment of this Court, the U.S.

Carmen J. Cardona v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 472 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 11, 2014

Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997) ("To qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, 'an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.'" … Therefore, this appeal clearly cannot be considered moot."); Phillips v. Pa. Higher Educ.

Richard J. Ley v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 2, 2025

Consistent with the Federal Circuit's plurality opinion in Taylor, we see no reason why section 5110 would be categorically immune to an as-applied constitutional 91 Id. at 926-27. 92 Id. at 926-28; see Richmond … He did not apply for any VA benefits because he didn’t know anything was wrong that would qualify him for benefits.189 181 Taylor, 71 F.4th at 939. 182 Id. at 935. 183 Id. 184 Id. at

Sean A. Ravin v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 2, 2018

That provision contains an extensive list of definitions and requirements for parties who seek to represent veterans under contracts that establish a contingent entitlement to a percentage of past-due benefits. … It commands that such agreements must "clearly specify if VA is to pay the agent or attorney directly out of past due benefits." 38 C.F.R. § 14.636(g)(2).

Burton R. Ripley v. Douglas A. Collins

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

Finally, the dissent asserts that we have confused standing with mootness, but our analysis shows clearly that, by focusing only on the timeframe prior to Mr. … VA "bears the burden to establish that a once-live case has become moot." EPA, 597 U.S. at 719.

Alvin Demery v. R Obert L. W Ilkie

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

And the Federal Circuit has made clear that substitution can occur when it is "undisputed" that a person qualifies. See Reeves, 682 F.3d at 993. … attributes.59 And though the substance of a valid NOA need not be presented in any particular form, or expressly state that it is an appeal of a final Board decision, it must contain the essential information Rule 3 requires and clearly

Balridge - Demel v. Nicholson

19 Vet. App. 227 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 26, 2005

See Planned Parenthood, 297 F.3d at 272 (holding that to establish the need for multiple counsel, prevailing parties “establish appropriate staffing by demonstrating that the various attorneys were assigned specific tasks … Unlike the Baldridge application, the roles of the attorneys cannot be clearly delineated based on the number of hours each counsel worked.

Encarnacionv. McDonald

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 30, 2023

Clearly, an action that does nothing more than implement a grant of benefits already determined by another agency department falls outside the definition of "decision" because it lacks the requisite assessment of legal or … Encarnacion's July 2018 submission qualifies as a motion to reconsider the Board's decision, we remand for it to do so. One final matter.

Robert W. Moody v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 8, 2018

regulatory context in which VA first used the phrase "will be considered as one disability," the combined ratings table was plainly and unambiguously the only method for combining disabilities to determine whether they qualified … wrote in the remand portion of its decision that the evidence suggests his "service-connected disabilities have rendered him unable to secure and maintain a substantially gainful occupation," I am confident that once he establishes

Josephine Duckett v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 12, 2025

Thus, Sperry was not decided against the backdrop of Smith, and we should not read Sperry as establishing a sole qualifier or exception for a then-nonexistent "rule" later announced in Smith. … Ravin would have been able to skip past such clearly irrelevant records, such as medical exams and the like, to the documents demonstrating substitution.

Hazan v. Gober

10 Vet. App. 511 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Nov 14, 1997

The Secretary addresses the issue of the use of the 1989 hearing testimony to establish an increased-rating effective date as a question of CUE, arguing that the 1989 hearing testimony cannot be used to establish an effective … The veteran’s August 29, 1989, testimony before a traveling section of the BVA is devoted largely to his admonishing the RO for having failed to provide an examination by a qualified specialist in orthopedic medicine, as