Case law

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.

In re the Fee Agreement of SMITH

1 Vet. App. 492 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 7, 1991

VJRA, during Senate consideration of the compromise agreement on the legislation (S.ll) enacted as Public Law 100-687 : “[I]f we are going to give veterans real access to judicial review, we must give them access to good, qualified … The Supreme Court has recently provided an object lesson in rejecting the plain meaning of a statutory provision when the legislative history clearly established a contrary intention on the part of Congress.

Corazon R. Patricio v. David J. Shulkin

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 31, 2017

Although prior cases addressing § 20.1106 have dealt mainly with determinations related to service-connection matters, the regulation's broad reference to "issues involved in a survivor's claim for death benefits" clearly … ("With the enactment of the Family Code . . . , Article 26 thereof, our lawmakers codified the law already established through judicial precedent.").

Mark Freund and Mary S. Mathewson v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 20, 2022

That was clearly not so, but it took the Court's sustained efforts over many months of inquiries as to whether this action is moot to have the Secretary admit as much. … And we will assume, without deciding, the class-claims here would qualify as ones that are inherently transitory.

Paul Cardoza v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 10, 2024

Supreme Court wrestled with "whether a dismissal by [an agency] Appeals Council on timeliness grounds after a claimant has received an ALJ hearing on the merits qualifies as a 'final decision . . . made after a hearing' for … And "the phrase 'final decision' clearly denotes some kind of terminal event." Id. at 1774.

Herman O. Bailey v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 6, 2021

When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition." … The phrase "VA will also consider" clearly divides the "ancillary benefits" portion of the provision from what comes after, as the Federal Circuit apparently understood in Manzanares.

William E. Terry v. Denis McDonough

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

He asserts that the regulation clearly provides that "in response to a decision on a claim by the AOJ, a claimant may select a single review option for each VA decision," and that, to continually pursue a claim, the claimant … However, it is a well-established canon of statutory interpretation that we give effect to all terms and avoid rendering any "'inoperative or superfluous, void or insignificant.'" Roper v.

Gene S. Groves v. Denis McDonough

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

The Secretary counters that Hamilton "cannot be read as establishing an absolute right to keep a claim pending indefinitely." Secretary's Br. at 12. … Gober, 10 Vet.App. 488, 498 (1997)), the Court did not limit briefing to any particular questions or issues; we simply sought briefing on the case by qualified amici on the appellant's behalf, see Groves v.

Purpose Built Families Foundation. v. Denis McDonough

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

There is a duty to ensure that, insofar as possible, only claims established within the law are paid. … Here, VA clearly complied with § 200.339 and properly determined that imposing any of the additional requirements listed under § 200.209 cannot remedy petitioner's noncompliance.

Karen R. Shorette v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 24, 2023

"[O]ther statutes and regulations determine the individuals or entities qualified to act as fiduciaries and outline the process the Secretary must follow when appointing a fiduciary." Id. … The petitioner must show that she lacks adequate alternative means to attain the desired relief and that she is clearly and indisputably entitled to the writ, and the Court must be convinced, given the circumstances, that

James R. Healey v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 24, 2021

He also noted that he qualified as an "in-country" Vietnam veteran. Id. VA obtained a medical examination shortly thereafter to determine whether the veteran's hypertension was related to his NHL treatment. … In so doing, the majority does not clearly resolve whether the Board may disregard its own internal guidance where, as here, the veteran does not explicitly contend before the Agency that hypertension is due to herbicide

Louis R. Frantzis v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 21, 2022

decision on a claim was rendered before February 19, 2019, and, correspondingly, under the AMA when the initial decision on the claim was rendered on or after February 19, 2019.31 But the line Congress drew was not entirely immune … What happened in this case clearly violated section 7102(a). Board member Reinhart was 184 Good Samaritan Hosp. v.

Alexandra M. Jackson v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 25, 2024

Because, if that were the case, then there’s a conflict with the law establishing the effective dates of awards. Let us explain. … McDonough, 34 Vet.App. 141, 147 (2021) (“The process for determining the meaning of statutes and regulations is well established. . . .

Carmen L. Encarnacion v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 18, 2023

Encarnacion's July 2018 submission qualifies as a motion to reconsider the Board's decision, we will vacate the June 2020 decision and remand for it to do so. … Brown, 6 Vet.App. 277, 281 (1994) ("[T]he Secretary's refusal to exercise jurisdiction . . . clearly presents a case or controversy within the purview of the Court's jurisdiction.").

Amanda Jane Wolfe and Peter E. Boerschinger v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Sep 9, 2019

owe—namely, costs for services that insurance doesn't cover.44 By this, the Court (and apparently, the petitioners45 too) understand the Secretary to suggest that VA's reimbursement of services not covered by other insurance qualifies … The drastic remedy of mandamus is properly exercised when certain, well established criteria are met. Because Ms.

Pellerin v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 415 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 13, 1997

Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992), expert testimony is admissible where the witness is qualified as an expert, and the question before the fact finder involves specialized knowledge. Id. at 495 . … the testimony offered by the veteran and others at the 1989 hearing cannot be considered “new,” inasmuch as its principal thrust was that the veteran now suffers from muscle atrophy of the right thigh which we note was clearly

Everett W. Cook v. Denis McDonough

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 17, 2023

Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989) ("In construing provisions . . . in which a general statement of policy is qualified by an exception, we usually read the exception narrowly in order to preserve the primary operation of the … Cook cites no legislative history that clearly expresses an intent contrary to the plain language of subsections 7113(c)(1) and 7113(c)(2)(A). See Garcia v.

James A. Godsey, Jr. v. Robert L. Wilkie

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 13, 2019

essentially no different than an unreasonable delay claim," and because "if there is any difference at all, it is that an unreasonable delay claim would likely be triggered prior to a delay becoming so prolonged that it qualifies … Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 3, 10 (1990) ("Claims for benefits due to military service clearly implicate human health and welfare concerns as distinguished from economic regulation.").

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

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 23, 2019

Furthermore, Congress has established a right to a hearing for veterans – something Mr. Dolphin sought. See 38 U.S.C. § 7107. … It is thus unclear whether the petitioner's benefits qualify as a sustainable source of income.

In Re James W. Stanley

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 28, 2009

Stanley admits that preparing a response to a designation of the record does qualify as providing legal advice, but argues that he did not violate the Court-ordered suspension because he did not appear before the Court or … The Model Rules do not define the practice of law, but simply state that "the practice of law is established by law and varies from one jurisdiction to another."