Case law

Hamilton v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 528 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 15, 1993

In view of the foregoing, the Federal Circuit’s Whitt single-judge order establishes two things. … Congress did not establish another kind of NOD for purposes of conferring jurisdiction on this Court over a particular case.

Everett Emerson v. Robert A. McDonald

28 Vet. App. 200 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 10, 2016

However, subsection (c) establishes an exception to these rules, the purpose of which is "to place a veteran in the position he [or she] would have been had . . . … Alpine Ridge Group, 508 U.S. 10, 18 (1993) (stating that the use of a "notwithstanding" clause "clearly signals the drafter's intention that the provisions of the 'notwithstanding' section override conflicting provisions

Allen Gumpenberger v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 3, 2022

Furthermore, the Secretary argues that the Board did not clearly err by finding that a 100% rating for TBI was based on VA's own initiative and not in response to an NOD. … We start with the obvious but nonetheless significant observation that obtaining a 100% disability rating under the rating schedule requires establishing elements that are distinct from establishing entitlement to TDIU.

Bruce R. Taylor v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 5, 2019

He therefore argues that equity demands that the Court order VA to establish a process by which he and other veterans like him may establish an earlier effective date for the award of benefits as of the date of the injury … 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 for such a payment

Terry L. Hamilton v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 23, 2024

The FTCA waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by Federal employees. Brownback v. King, 141 S. Ct. 740, 746 (2021). … Finally, the record clearly reflects that Mr. Hamilton put VA adjudicators, including the Board, on notice of the FTCA claim file's existence, thereby adequately identifying any records contained therein.

James S. Eicher v. David J. Shulkin

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 14, 2017

The Post-9/11 GI Bill builds upon the system established by the Montgomery GI Bill and many of the eligibility determinations under Chapter 33 are defined by reference to Chapter 30. … As the Court has clearly explained, "[t]he [U.S.] Supreme Court has held that the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. art.

Marvin L. Loyd v. Douglas A. Collins

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 8, 2025

Congress clearly instructs us to look to section 5108 for guidance if a claimant chooses to file a supplemental claim. … This is where we see clearly that with choice come consequences.

Conley F. Monk, Jr. v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 23, 2018

Neither of these rights is tied to an individualized reason for deprivation or delay–or at least not so under clearly established law. … While there is no bright line rule that establishes numerosity, the class proposed in this action clearly satisfies that requirement under any standard. See, e.g., Cox v. Am.

Carpenter v. Principi

15 Vet. App. 64 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 21, 2001

Before turning to the analysis of these two issues, however, I want to express my concern that the majority opinion is more an exercise in policymaking, that is, in judicial legislation, than judicial review of policies established … Certainly, if we are going to give veterans real access to judicial review, we must give them access to good, qualified attorneys.

Eicherv. McDonald

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 19, 2017

The Post-9/11 GI Bill builds upon the system established by the Montgomery GI Bill and many of the eligibility determinations under Chapter 33 are defined by reference to Chapter 30. … As the Court has clearly explained, "[t]he [U.S.] Supreme Court has held that the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, U.S. Const. art.

Meeks v. West

13 Vet. App. 40 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 24, 1999

a novel interpretation of the law regarding establishing effective dates that is dispositive of the outcome in this matter. … One reason for such noncompensable ratings is that they serve to qualify a veteran for certain VA medical care and contract care under chapter 17 of title 38, U.S.Code.

John R. Ramsey Et Al. v. R. James Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 16 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 31, 2006

For example, such authority is balanced against Congress’s clearly expressed disapproval of delay in adjudicating the claims of veterans. … Notably, this original provision existed 55 years before this Court and judicial review were established.

Joseph Spellers v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 7, 2018

Rather, the Board must "first establish a proper foundation for drawing inferences against a claimant from an absence of documentation." Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet.App. 258, 272 (2015). … Given that the record contains statements from the appellant that he was terminated from jobs because he was "moving too slowly" and "wasn't physically qualified for the work," R. at 64, it is possible that the Board may

Larry M. Ward and Gabriel S. Neal v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 14, 2019

The Court stated that it was defining a more general meaning encompassing "any increase in disability."25 The Court was clearly construing the statutory phrase "disability resulting from," and concluded that this phrase encompassed … measurement.37 Cases before this Court have required medical determinations for ascertaining the incremental increase in disability that may not be subject to numerical quantification, but must be evaluated by a qualified

Majeed v. Principi

16 Vet. App. 421 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 28, 2002

farm indebtedness; or (d) in the case of a taxpayer other than a “C corporation”, the indebtedness discharged is qualified real-property business indebtedness. 26 U.S.C. § 108 (a)(1). … Moreover, a review of the pertinent regulations shows that the Secretary has established rather detailed procedural safeguards for a variety of situations in which a claimant’s benefits may be reduced, see, e.g., 38 C.F.R

Barry C. Withers v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 10, 2018

Legal instruments establish or define specific rights or entitlements. BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 869 (9th ed. 2009). … But the word "sedentary," although clearly having the general sense of sitting, has numerous definitions conveying that sense to varying degrees.

Louann Wolfe v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 31, 2020

That authority includes establishing "regulations with respect to the nature and extent of proof and evidence . . . in order to establish the right to benefits under such laws," "the forms of application by claimants under … The issue before us is whether the appellant's case qualified for reconsideration. We don't need to address the standard for vacatur to agree that it does not.

Michael W. Canady v. R. James Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 353 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 7, 2006

DAVIS, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I join in the majority's opinion insofar as it affirms the effective date established by the Board in Decision 1. … In the interest of judicial economy, petitions are to be used in only extraordinary circumstances, thus one arguably erroneous dismissal would not qualify. See DeBeers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v.

Michael W. Canady v. R. James Nicholson

20 Vet. App. 393 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 15, 2006

DAVIS, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I join in the majority's opinion insofar as it affirms the effective date established by the Board in Decision 1. … In the interest of judicial economy, petitions are to be used in only extraordinary circumstances, thus one arguably erroneous dismissal would not qualify. See DeBeers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v.

Emilio Estevez v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 19, 2023

But when that language is read in context, it is clearly not dispositive, as neither case answered the interpretative question before us today nor overrides the regulatory framework. … Estevez, his pain at rest was sufficient to satisfy DC 5258's pain requirement, leaving his pain on motion unaccounted for and available to establish a compensable limitation of extension under DC 5261.