Case law

Vda de Landicho v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 42 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 23, 1994

Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 32, 33 (1990) (“clearly erroneous” standard must be applied in assessing the Board’s factual “determination of the capacity of the appellant’s son to support himself’). … Court Rule Amendment In light of the above analysis, and following the procedure established in Stillwell v.

Felton v. Brown

7 Vet. App. 276 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 21, 1994

Secretary of Health and Human Services, 815 F.2d 1381, 1383 (10th Cir.1987) (finding Government’s position to be substantially justified where applicable law was unclear or in flux; stating that “‘the more clearly established … However, whereas section 506 of the FCAA is an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to subsection (d) of the EAJA, it does not constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to subsection (b) of the

Juliet T. Tagupa v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 95 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 26, 2014

Tagupa, appeals through counsel from an August 2, 2011, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that denied her VA benefits because her husband did not have qualifying military service to establish status as a veteran … In its decision, the Board mentioned that service department certifications may establish unrecognized guerrilla service, which is qualifying service for VA compensation benefits.

Mason v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 129 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 24, 2002

The decision noted: "Qualifying service for entitlement to pension is not in evidence." R. at 144. An April 1997 RO decision noted that Mr. … Mason had never been formally denied non-service-connected (NSC) pension benefits, but that his record revealed no qualifying service. R. at 262.

Tucker v. West

11 Vet. App. 369 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 13, 1998

In January 1970, the RO determined that he did not qualify for SMC based on permanent loss of use of one or both legs. R. at 191. … The rating levels of SMC are established in 38 U.S.C. § 1114 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.350 (1997).

Snyder v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 62 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 11, 2002

Clearly, VA internal procedures cannot trump these higher authorities. … principles of sovereign immunity.

Joseph A. Celano v. James B. Peake

22 Vet. App. 341 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 6, 2009

The Court discerns no ambiguity in the statutory provisions establishing these requirements. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. … This conclusion by the Board is not clearly erroneous.

Biggins v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 474 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 25, 1991

On December 3, 1979, appellant underwent an initial enlistment medical examination which found no abnormalities and listed her as qualified for enlistment. R. at 17. … The Court may set aside findings of fact made by the Board only if they are “clearly erroneous”. 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(4).

Kulick v. Derwinski

2 Vet. App. 640 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 28, 1992

The BVA determined appellant did not qualify for aid and attendance. … It is only necessary that the evidence establish that the veteran is so helpless as to need regular aid and attendance....

Selley v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 196 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 8, 1994

if such service had been performed in the Armed Forces of the United States unless such person is entitled to, or would, upon application thereof, be entitled to, payment for equivalent care and services under a program established … eligibility under this subsection, each applicant for the benefits thereof shall furnish an authenticated certification from the French Ministry of Defense or the British War Office as to records in either such Office which clearly

Alberto Q. Palor v. R. James Nicholson

21 Vet. App. 202 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 11, 2007

This finding is clearly erroneous. See Mayfield, 444 F.3d at 1333-34. … or does not qualify him for veteran status may be binding on his claim.

Robert H. Gray v. Robert A. McDonald

27 Vet. App. 313 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 23, 2015

The Federal Circuit clearly stated that this language "qualifies as interpretation rather than reiteration." Id. 6 Mr. Haas never entered a harbor or port because his ship carried explosive materials. … As the Board clearly stated in the decision on appeal, VA's policy designates Da Nang Harbor as blue water and, therefore, anchoring in the harbor is insufficient to establish entitlement to the presumption.

Grivois v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 136 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 5, 1994

Appellant had qualifying service in the Armed Forces from October 1965 to October 1967. In 1989, the Regional Office (RO) denied appellant’s original claims, filed in 1988, for all seven disorders. R. at 93. … Causality between the adverse reaction to the immunization is, at best, uncertain.

Howard E. Chandler v. Eric K. Shinseki

24 Vet. App. 23 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 12, 2010

The Court does not adopt this construction of the statute because it would lead to this absurd result, which clearly could not have been the intent of Congress. … He argues that Hartness clearly establishes that section 1513 entitles veterans age 65 or older without a disability rated as permanent and total to special monthly pension benefits under section 1521(e) if the veteran meets

Eric J. Stewart v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 20, 2018

Such a strained construction is clearly at odds with the plain reading of the regulation. … However, Goodman clearly does not make this broad pronouncement.

Isenhart v. Derwinski

3 Vet. App. 177 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 3, 1992

The evidence does not establish that the veteran’s death was due to a service-connected disability.” R. at 10. … In September 1989, appellant filed a statement in support of claim, contending: “Since I qualify now I should have qualified in 1987 so it is my contention that my benefits should have started in April 1987 and I should receive

Kern v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 350 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 10, 1993

Such matters are exclusively within the purview of the military establishment. … Moreover, appellant’s attorney is not qualified to provide an explanation of the significance of the clinical evidence. Esp iritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 495 (1992).

Kassidy A. Perkins v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 16, 2025

Rudisill and Appellant's Nonoverlapping Qualifying Service As we explained above, in Rudisill, the Supreme Court held that a veteran with separate periods of qualifying service establishing eligibility for benefits … Appellant's lengthy active-duty service qualified her for benefits under both the MGIB and Post-9/11 programs without her having to use any of her time in service more than once to establish eligibility.

Robert L. Trafter v. Eric K. Shinseki

26 Vet. App. 267 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 29, 2013

(DIC) for the qualifying death of a veteran. … Therefore, the Board clearly erred in finding that VA had substantially complied with “assistance requirements.” R. at 6; see Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 52 .

William P. McLendon v. R. James Nicholson

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 5, 2006

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 … Maniscalco and Bearison were speculative and did not establish a medical nexus, the Board failed to recognize that these opinions also did not establish that there was no medical nexus. Cf. Forshey v.