Case law

Dizoglio v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 163 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 7, 1996

Winslow v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 469, 471 (1996). The Court has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7252 (a). I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The appellant had active military service with the U.S. … Brown, 5 Vet.App. 229, 232 (1993); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 192 (1991); Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 52-53 .

Stadin v. Brown

8 Vet. App. 280 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 26, 1995

See Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 69, 74 (1995); Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 379, 384 (1995); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494 (1992); see also Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 390, 393-94 (1994). … Improvement & Power Dist. v. United States, 762 F.2d 1053, 1061, n. 8 (D.C.Cir.1985)); see also Tallman v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 453, 466 (1995).

McCall v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 215 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 15, 1994

McCall v. Brown, U.S.Vet.App. No. 93-680. … See Browder v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 268 (1993); see also Kori Corp. v. Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, 761 F.2d 649 , 657 (Fed.Cir.1985).

Hayes v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 67 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 10, 1996

The Court finds that a remand is necessary so that the Board, prior to determining whether service connection is warranted, may obtain a medical opinion. Rollings v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 8, 12 (1995); Hatlestad v. … Gabrielson, 7 Vet.App. at 40 ; Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 119, 122 (1993) (Board may reject a claimant’s medical evidence only on the basis of other independent medical evidence); Abernathy v.

Traut v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 495 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 2, 1994

“The Board may not simply reject the medical opinions given, equivocal though they may be, by using its own medical judgment.” Obert v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 30, 33 (1993); see also Talley v. … See Harder v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 183, 188 (1993); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (d)(1); Thurber, 5 Vet.App. at 126 .

People of the State of California Ex Rel. Edmund G. Brown Jr., Attorney General of the State of California v. United States

United States Court of Federal Claims · Mar 13, 2015

Co. v. United States, (No. 07-157C), 105 Fed. Cl. 420 (2012) and California ex rel. Brown v. United States, (No. 07-184C), 105 Fed. … Brown v. United States, 110 Fed. Cl. at 140). The Government has not “provide[d] any reason why that order may be reconsidered now.” Pl. Resp. at 11.

Elkins v. Brown

5 Vet. App. 474 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Oct 7, 1993

See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 458, 460 (1993). … Swann v.

Ashford v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 120 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Feb 27, 1997

Cox v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 95, 98 (1993). Further, in order to reopen Mr. … Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180, 183 (1991); see also McGraw v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 138, 142 (1994); but see Ephraim v.

Dudnick v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 79 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jan 28, 1997

On April 2, 1996, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal from a June 1, 1995, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA) decision. … See *80 Swann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 229, 232 (1993); see also Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 60, 66-67 (1993); Kamas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 308, 313 (1991).

Guimond v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 69 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Dec 8, 1993

Cox v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 95, 98 (1993). … The Board gave a plausible reason for rejecting his opinion — that it was based entirely on the credibility of the history given to Dr. Gan by the appellant. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 458, 459-61 (1993).

O-Y-A-E

29 I. & N. Dec. 190 · Board of Immigration Appeals · Jul 23, 2025

See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i) (2025); see also Ridore v. … See Dhital v.

Thomas v. Brown

9 Vet. App. 269 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 1, 1996

On October 3,1995, the appellant in Thomas v. Brown, U.S. Vet.App. No. 95-993, filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) as to an August 29, 1995, decision from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board). … See Smith (William) v. Brown, 35 F.3d 1516, 1527 (Fed.Cir.1994) (holding that CUE regulation in § 3.105(a) applies only to prior RO decision and is not available to mount collateral attack on prior Board decision).

Romeo v. Brown

5 Vet. App. 388 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Aug 6, 1993

v. … Brown, 4 Vet.App. 301, 303-04 (1993) (Board must explain, in the context of the facts presented, the criteria used in determining the rating category into which the veteran’s symptoms fall).

Monroe v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 513 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Apr 13, 1993

The Board’s statement of reasons or'bases for this conclusion, however, was inadequate. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990). … The Board, however, referred to no evidentiary basis for this conclusion, see Colvin v.

Dobson v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 443 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 30, 1993

Fugere v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 103, 110 (1990) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 901 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). … Here, the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases, see Gilbert v.

Mata v. Brown

4 Vet. App. 276 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Mar 11, 1993

Weggenmann v. Brown

5 Vet. App. 281 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jul 13, 1993

Sammarco v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 111, 113 (1991). … The new decision issued by the Board shall include an adequate statement of “reasons or bases” for its findings and conclusions as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (d)(1) (West 1991). Gilbert v.

DeLuca v. Brown

6 Vet. App. 321 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · May 18, 1993

or unpersuasive”, Gilbert v. … Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384, 392-94 (1993).

Farnsworth v. Brown

124 F.2d 208 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 29, 1941

to Brown and Roberts upon certain counts involved in an interference declared by the Primary Examiner between a divisional application of Brown and Roberts and a patent issued to Farnsworth. … The Examiner of Interferences awarded Farnsworth priority as to count 2 and Brown and Roberts took no appeal from his decision. Priority as to all the remaining counts was awarded Brown *742 and.

Suozzi v. Brown

10 Vet. App. 307 · United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · Jun 9, 1997

Cox v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 95, 98 (1993). … See Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 273, 282-84 (1996). Moreover, given the facts of this case, once the claim is reopened, the benefit of the doubt rule may take on heightened significance. See Gilbert v.