VFW
National Veterans Service
CAVC Issues/Words and Phrases
PTC Memphis TN. 2005
1
VETERANS APPEALS REPORTER
ISSUES
(Edited 3/17/05)
ABANDONMENT: Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in determining that veteran abandoned claim for
increased rating for right-knee disability without giving statement of reasons or bases for its finding.
-- Verdon v. Brown - Docket No. 94-0186 (8 Vet. App. 529 (1996))
ACCRUED BENEFIT: Assistance for specially adapted housing was not payable after veteran's death as
accrued benefit.
-- Pappalardo v. Brown - Docket No. 92-642 (6 Vet. App. 63 (1993))
Survivor's accrued-benefits claim asserting that veteran's disorder was service connected incorporated prior
adjudications of service-connection issue in claims brought by veteran.
-- Zevalkink v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1683 (6 Vet. App. 483 (1994))
Veteran's application for benefits provided sufficient evidence in his file before his death of his marriage for his
widow to claim accrued benefits.
-- Jones v. Brown - Docket No. 93-473 (8 Vet. App. 558 (1996))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over attempt by asserted daughter of dependency and indemnity
compensation claimant to obtain accrued benefits after notifying court of her mother's death and her desire "to
pursue" her appeal.
-- Edmonds v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1295 (8 Vet. App. 159 (1996))
Electronic fund transfer constituted “accrued benefits” within meaning of statue.
-- Wilkes v. Principi Docket No. 01-724 (16 Vet. App. 237 (2002))
ACQUIESCENCE: Decision of Court of Veterans Appeals is to be followed unless overturned by that Court
en banc, the United States Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, or Supreme Court. -- Tobler v. Derwinski Docket No. 91-1366 (2 Vet. App. 8 (1991))
ACTIVE SERVICE: Army's two-year wrongful attempt to assert court-martial jurisdiction did not impose
military status on veteran, so that he was not on active duty for purposes of benefits during that period.
-- Maladonado v. Brown - Docket No. 92-876 (6 Vet App. 48 (1993))
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION: Disabled veteran was not entitled to additional compensation based on
mental condition of his adult son.
-- Bledsoe v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-141 (1 Vet. App. 32 (1990))
ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL: Department of Veterans Affairs was required to give notice of
an opportunity to comment on deletion of paragraph from its Adjudication Procedure Manual.
-- Fugere v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-72 (1 Vet. App. 103 (1990))
AGENT ORANGE: Veteran was not entitled to service-connection for birth defects and causes of death of his
children, secondary to his exposure to Agent Orange.
-- Martin v. Brown - Docket No. 94-989 (8 Vet. App. 139 (1995))
2
Veteran exposed to Agent Orange was entitled to award of retroactive benefits with payment beginning one
year before date of his application for benefits.
-- McCay v. Brown - Docket No. 94-881 (8 Vet. App. (1995))
Vietnam veteran exposed to Agent Orange was entitled to retroactive benefits for one-year period before his
application for benefits for soft tissue sarcoma.
-- McCay v. Brown - Docket No. 94-881 (9 Vet. App. 183 (1996))
AGGRAVATION: When aggravation of nonservice-connected condition is proximately due to serviceconnected condition, veteran is to be compensated for disability above degree of disability existing prior to
aggravation.
-- Allen v. Brown - Docket No. 93-295 (7 Vet. App. 439 (1995))
AGGRAVATION OF INJURY: Temporary flare-ups during service of pre-existing injury are not sufficient
to be considered aggravation in service unless underlying condition, as contrasted to symptoms, is worsened.
-- Hunt v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-543 (1 Vet. App. 292 (1991))
Aggravation of veteran's back condition from being struck by motorized wheelchair while waiting for
examination was not result of having submitted to VA examination.
-- Sweitzer v. Brown - Docket No. 92-337 (5 Vet. App. 503 (1993))
To the extent that regulation would provide disability compensation for temporary exacerbation of pre-existing
conditions, it was invalid.
-- Jensen v. Brown - Docket No. 90-661 (4 Vet. App. 304 (1993))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs' failure to address claim for aggravation of pre-existing condition required
remand.
-- Laposky v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1469 (4 Vet. App. 331 (1993))
Veteran's pre-existing psychiatric condition was not aggravated by military service.
-- Green v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-108 (1 Vet. App. 121 (1991))
AID AND ATTENDANCE: Veteran was not entitled to aid and attendance benefit.
-- Kulick v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-887 (2 Vet. App. 640 (1992))
AIDS: BVA's failure to address medical opinion supporting veteran's claim that he became infected with HIV
during service warranted remand.
-- ZN v. Brown - Docket No. 93-493 (6 Vet. App. 183 (1994))
ALCOHOL AND DRUG DEPENDENCE: Veteran failed to establish that his claim for service connection
for alcohol and drug dependence is secondary to his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder was well
grounded.
-- Libertine v. Brown - Docket No. 93-865 (9 Vet. App. 521 (1996))
ANXIETY REACTION: Veteran's service-connected anxiety reaction was productive of no more than mild
social and industrial impairment.
-- Beno v. Principi - Docket No. 91-905 (3 Vet. App. 439 (1992))
3
APPEAL: Board failed to adequately consider “all applicable provision of law.”
-- Weaver v. Principi – Docket No. 00-2284 (14 Vet. App., 301 (2001))
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims could not make award on basis of reversal by Federal Circuit.
-- Dambach v. Principi – Docket No. 98-356 (14 Vet. App., 307 (2001))
Final judgment was not subject to VCAA recall order of Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
-- Pardue v. Principi – Docket No. 97-1789 (15 Vet. App., 120 (2001))
No appellate jurisdiction existed over nonfinal Board decision remanding claim.
-- Matthews v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1872 (15 Vet. App., 139 (2001))
Jurisdiction was lacking for want of a timely notice of disagreement (NOD).
-- Baldwin v. Principi – Docket No. 96-1170 (15 Vet. App., 302 (2001))
Represented veterans could waive VCCA consideration on appeal.
-- Janssen v. Principi – Docket No. 99-2229 (15 Vet. App., 370 (2001))
Portion of decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was final before veteran’s death.
-- Sagnella v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1169 (15 Vet. App., 242 (2001))
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has Jurisdiction over Pacheco Claims.
-- West v. Principi – Docket No. 95-1136 (Vet. App., 246 (2001))
Motion for full court decision would not be granted.
-- Benjamin v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1001 (Vet. App., 253 (2001))
Petitioner did not demonstrate need for full Court decision.
-- Winsett v. Principi – Docket No. 01-726 (Vet. App., 403 (2002))
Filing of NOA divested Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims of jurisdiction.
-- Sumner v. Principi – Docket No. 99-368 (15 Vet. App., 404 (2002))
Court lacked jurisdiction over pending motions after appellant filed NOA.
-- Levi v. Principi – Docket No. 00-814 (16 Vet. App., 87 (2002))
Failure to file substantive appeal did not deprive Board of jurisdiction.
-- Gonzalez-Morales v. Principi – Docket No. 00-933 (16 Vet. App., 556 (2003))
Veteran’s appeal was untimely.
-- Davis v. Principi – Docket No. 01-323 (17 Vet. App., 29 (2003))
Postmarked-stamped certified-mail receipt satisfies statutory requirement.
-- Evans v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1695 (17 Vet. App., 41 (2003))
Appellants did not carry burden on motion for interlocutory appeal.
4
-- Homan v. Principi – Docket No. 02-1127, 02-1128 (17 Vet. App., 58 (2003))
Veteran was not entitled to advancement of his case on Board docket.
-- Dailey v. Principi – Docket No. 02-1728 (17 Vet. App., 61(2003))
Board’s failure to give adequate explanation required remand of appeal.
-- Sanders v. Principi – Docket No. 01-813 (17 Vet. App., 232 (2003))
It was error to dismiss appeal for failure to allege specific error.
-- Gomez v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1037 (17 Vet. App., 369 (2003))
Equitable tolling was not appropriate in case of untimely notice of appeal.
-- Reed v. Principi – Docket No. 02-127 (17 Vet. App., 380 (2003))
Veterans did not establish basis for equitable tolling of judicial-appeal period.
-- Thornhill v. Principi – Docket No. 03-600 ( 17 Vet. App., 480 (2004))
Veteran’s Notice of appeal (NOA) was untimely.
-- Durr v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1249 (17 Vet. App., 486 (2004))
Equitable tolling doctrine was applicable to toll 120-day judicial-appeal period.
-- Bobbitt v. Principi – Docket No. 03-0928 (17 Vet. App., 547 (2004))
Veteran’s appeal was rendered moot by enactment of regulation.
-- Long v. Principi – Docket No. 01-2133 (17 Vet. App., 555 (2004))
Equitable tolling of judicial-appeal period was not warranted.
-- Tavares v. Principi – Dockets No. 02-799 (18 Vet. App. 131 (2004))
Jurisdiction was lacking over appeal, as there was no case or controversy.
-- Urban v. Principi – Docket No. 03-1329 (18 Vet. App. 143 (2004))
Panel decision was appropriate where issues was legal one of first impression.
-- Hartman v. Principi – Docket No. 02-1506 (18 Vet. App., 432 (2004))
Veteran’s death pending appeal rendered appeal moot.
-- Desbrow v. Principi – Docket No. 02-352 (18 Vet. App., 478 (2004))
Veteran was not entitled to VA assistance to establish equitable tolling of judicial-appeal period.
-- Jones v. Principi – Docket No. 03-1996 (18 Vet. App., 500 (2004))
APPEALS: Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) erred in failing to address issue of direct service connection for
basal-cell carcinoma.
-- Douglas v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-678 (2 Vet. App. 103 (1992))
Veteran's premature notice of appeal became effective upon denial by chairman of Board of Veterans' Appeals
of motion for BVA reconsideration and at that time became effective with respect to decision denying increase
in disability rating.
5
--Wachter v. Brown - Docket No. 94-391 (7 Vet. App. 396 (1995))
Board of Veterans' Appeals did not mail its decision to veteran's representative for 120-day notice of appeal
filing period to begin running.
-- Davis v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1096 (7 Vet. App. 298 (1994))
Court lacked jurisdiction over claim that has remained in appellate status since notice of disagreement was filed
before effective date of Veterans' Judicial Review Act.
-- Johnson v. Brown - Docket No. 94-161 (7 Vet. App. 25 (1994))
Letter from claimants representative disagreeing with regional office's denial of his claim for rating increase
was valid notice of disagreement.
-- Hauck v. Brown - Docket No. 91-239 (6 Vet. App. 518 (1994))
Veteran's appeal from BVA decision affirming termination of pension benefits would be dismissed where
appeal was based on possible adverse action on veteran's subsequent reapplication for benefits.
-- Shoen v. Brown - Docket No. 92-794 (6 Vet. App. 456 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals was required to adjudicate veteran's osteoporosis, osteomyelitis, and premature
aging claims which had been reasonably raised by veteran.
-- Powell v. Brown - Docket No. 91-998 (6 Vet. App. 325 (1993))
Veteran filed timely notice of appeal from Board of Veterans' Appeals, though not within required 120-day
period.
-- Trammell v. Brown - Docket No. 93-774 (6 Vet App. 181 (1994))
Secretary's concessions of error in his own decision constituted changed circumstances compelling exercise of
jurisdiction.
-- McCall v. Brown - Docket No. 93-680 (6 Vet. App. 215 (1994))
Veteran's claim that Board committed clear and unmistakable error in not applying wartime veteran's
presumption of aggravation was improperly raised for first time on appeal.
-- Sondel v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1101 (6 Vet. App. 218 (1994))
Single-judge interlocutory decision on procedural event is not subject to panel review.
-- Bair v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1477 (6 Vet. App. 68 (1993))
Veteran's appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals was untimely.
-- Roy v. Brown - Docket No. 92-867 (5 Vet. App. 554 (1993))
Notice of appeal and motion for reconsideration were deemed filed simultaneously under general rule of
indivisibility of days.
-- Losh v. Brown - Docket No. 93-603 (6 Vet. App. 87 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over appeal.
-- Frazer v. Brown - Docket No. 91-754 (6 Vet. App. 19 (1993))
Notice of disagreement on claim for service connection for psychiatric disability was filed before November 18,
1988, so that it did not meet jurisdictional prerequisite for review.
6
-- Calvert v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1679 (5 Vet. App. 461 (1993))
BVA could dismiss veteran's appeal for failure to file timely substantive appeal form.
-- Bridges v. Brown - Docket No. 92-601 (5 Vet. App. 496 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over widow's claim for dependency and indemnity compensation.
-- Lyon v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1496 (5 Vet. App. 507 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over appeal from order denying increased rating for right leg
disability.
-- Tomlin v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2165 (5 Vet. App. 355 (1993))
BVA could correct minor, non-substantive error in decision after veteran filed notice of appeal with Court of
Appeals only with prior approval of court.
-- Lauigan v. Brown - Docket No. 93-149 (5 Vet. App. 358 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals was without jurisdiction to review decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals denying
claim to increased rating for service-connected left shoulder disability.
-- Danko v. Brown - Docket No. 90-911 (5 Vet. App. 445 (1993))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs was required to supplement record on appeal, which was inadequate to permit
review.
-- King v. Brown - Docket No. 92-709 (5 Vet. App. 19 (1993))
Board's decision was not mailed in timely fashion and thus 120-day period for appeal was tolled.
-- Piano v. Brown - Docket No. 92-504 (5 Vet. App. 25 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction to review unappealed decision of the Board of Veterans
Appeals.
-- Schmidt v. Brown - Docket No. 92-174 (5 Vet. App. 27 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over case in which there was no Notice of Disagreement filed on
or after November 18, 1988, as required by Veterans' Judicial Review Act.
-- Noll v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1364 (5 Vet. App. 80 (1993))
Veteran's claim that he was entitled to pension based on his family's needs, could not be subject of appeal
before Court of Veterans Appeals where issue was not raised before Board of Veterans' Appeals.
-- Latham v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1520 (4 Vet. App. 269 (1993))
Full review of decision of Court of Veterans Appeals and panel's denial of reconsideration may be sought
within 14 days after date of panel's denial.
-- Mata v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1309 (4 Vet. App. 276 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals could not decide issue of compensable disability rating for scar on left ring finger.
-- Steelman v. Brown - Docket No. 91-53 (4 Vet. App. 335 (1993))
Motion simultaneously seeking reconsideration and full court review of panel's remand decision was premature
as to motion for review by full court prior to denial of reconsideration.
-- Fisher v. Brown-Docket No. 90-1179 (2 Vet. App. 406 (1992))
7
Court of Veterans Appeals has authority to deem failure of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to file appropriate
response a concession of error.
-- MacWhorter v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-935 (2 Vet. App. 133 (1992))
Veteran's notice of appeal was untimely filed.
-- Josephson v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-1401 (2 Vet. App. 453 (1992))
Substantive appeal of entitlement to service connection for cause of veteran's death was untimely filed.
-- Jamias v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-295 (2 Vet. App. 507 (1992))
Question of whether medical records had been offered and rejected during adjudication process had to be
considered before it could be determined whether records could be included on appeal.
-- Rollins v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-690 (3 Vet. App. 212 (1992))
Court of Veterans Appeals could not consider material which was not part of record.
-- Grix v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-534 (3 Vet. App. 218 (1992))
Veteran was entitled to counter designation of record
-- Grix v. Principi - Docket No. 91-534 (3 Vet. App. 221 (1992))
Counter-designated documents which were dated after decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals could not be
included in record on appeal.
-- Andrews v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-2140 (3 Vet. App. 61 (1992))
Issue of pension due to service-connected kidney disability, raised for first time on appeal, could not be
considered.
-- Talon v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-350 (3 Vet. App. 74 (1992))
Veteran's notice of appeal was untimely.
-- Ostermiller v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1680 (3 Vet. App. 97 (1992))
Notice of disagreement on claim for service connection for psychiatric disability was filed before November 18,
1988, so that it did not meet jurisdictional prerequisite for review.
-- Calvert v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1679 (5 Vet. App. 461 (1993))
BVA could dismiss veteran's appeal for failure to file timely substantive appeal form.
-- Bridges v. Brown - Docket No. 92-601 (5 Vet. App. 496 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over widow's claim for dependency and indemnity compensation.
-- Lyon v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1496 (5 Vet. App. 507 (1993))
Order granting joint motion for remand terminated veteran's appeal.
--Bowers v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2013 (8 Vet. App. 25 (1995))
Although BVA decision was not mailed in accordance with statutory requirements, 120-day period for filing
notice of appeal was deemed to begin on date VA received statement in support of claim.
8
--Pepitone v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1140 (8 Vet. App. 31 (1995))
BVA has fundamental authority to decide a claim in the alternative.
-- Holbrook v. Brown - Docket No. 94-241 (8 Vet. App. 91 (1995))
BVA could rely on address provided by veteran on his 1-9 appeal as his last known address for purposes of
mailing copy of its decision and, thus, notice of appeal, filed approximately one year after mailing, was
untimely.
-- Thompson v. Brown - Docket No. 93-264 (8 Vet. App. 169 (1995))
Court of Veterans Appeals would not accept redacted record.
-- Yu v. Brown - Docket No. 95-199 (8 Vet. App. 185 (1995))
120-day appeal period commenced no later than date veteran acknowledge receiving Board of Veteran's
Appeals decision in letter to his senator's office.
-- Ibeling v. Brown - Docket No. 95-104 (8 Vet. App. 256 (1995))
Documents not before the Secretary of Veterans Affairs or the Board of Veteran's Appeals when the Board
issued its decision were not part of the record on appeal.
-- Murillo v. Brown - Docket No. 94-22 (8 Vet. App. 278 (1995))
Veteran's widow was not entitled to continue proceedings in her husband's appeal.
-- Yoma v. Brown - Docket No. 94-474 (8 Vet. App. 298 (1995))
Veteran's notice of appeal was untimely filed when it was received by court 126 days after Board of Veterans'
Appeals decision was mailed.
-- Lanao v. Brown - Docket No. 95-388 (8 Vet. App. 361 (1995))
Where there is supervening higher court decision, rather than recall mandate after case has been remanded,
Board of Veterans' Appeals should examine whether that decision has clearly changed court's law, and, by
operation of law, modified court's earlier mandate.
-- Chisem v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1540 (8 Vet. App. 374 (1995))
Agreement by parties that claim was not well-grounded superseded merits decision of BVA and mooted appeal.
-- Burke v. Brown - Docket No. 94-49 (8 Vet. App. 376 (1995))
When BVA erroneously concluded claim was well-grounded and proceeded to consider merits in disallowed
claim, decision was disallowance of claim, rather than nullity.
-- Edenfield v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1263 (8 Vet. App. 384 (1995))
Board of Veterans' Appeals did not comply with statutory mailing requirement, so that 120-day notice of appeal
filing period did not begin to run before receipt of notice of appeal.
-- Leo v. Brown - Docket No. 93-844 (8 Vet. App. 410 (1995))
Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appeal of BVA chairman's denial of reconsideration.
-- Jordan v. Brown - Docket No. 95-274 (8 Vet. App. 428 (1995))
Reconsideration of decision to dismiss appeal for lack of jurisdiction was warranted bases on evidence that
veteran's service representative may not have received Board of Veterans' Appeals decision.
9
-- Thompson v. Brown - Docket No. 93-264 (8 Vet. App. 430 (1995))
Veteran's appeal of Board of Veterans' Appeals' chairman's denial of reconsideration was not timely filed nearly
two years after final BVA decision was issued.
-- Cochran v. Brown - Docket No. 95-594 (8 Vet. App. 557 (1996))
Veteran's pro se letter addressed to the Court of Veterans Appeals expressing his desire to follow the legal flow
of his case satisfied requirement for valid notice of appeal.
-- Calma v. Brown - Docket No. 95-0138 (9 Vet. App. 11 (1996))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs failed to prove compliance with statute requiring BVA to mail copy of decision to
veteran's last known address.
-- Cross v. Brown - Docket No. 95-752 (9 Vet. App. 18 (1996))
Previous holding in different case was intervening change of controlling law within the exception to the law of
the case doctrine.
-- Goble v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1543 (9 Vet. App. 22 (1996)
Veteran's letter to Department of Veterans Affairs was a notice of disagreement.
-- Beyrle v. Brown - Docket No. 94-688 (9 vet. App. 24 (1996))
New mandate would not be issued in case where en banc decision clearly changed law earlier established by
three-judge panel.
-- Leopoldo v. Brown - Docket No. 90-612 (9 Vet. App. 33 (1996))
Veteran's death while denial by Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) of his claim for disability compensation was
pending on appeal required that BVA decision be vacated and his appeal be dismissed.
-- Ferguson v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1179 (9 Vet. App. 59 (1996))
Board of Veterans' Appeals satisfied requirement of promptly mailing copy of its written decision to claimant's
representative by sending it to representative's national office, according to claimant's representative
designation.
-- Pittman v. Brown - Docket No. 94-925 (9 Vet. App. 60 (1996))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs provided sufficient evidence to support finding that claimant's representative
received copy of Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) decision, curing any defect in BVA's procedure for mailing
its decision.
-- Thompson v. Brown - Docket No. 93-264 (9 Vet. App. 173 (1996))
Board of Veterans' Appeal satisfied statutory mailing requirement.
-- Navarro v. Brown - Docket No. 95-255 (9 Vet. App. 192 (1996))
Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction over BVA chairman's denial of motion for reconsideration
of prior decisions.
-- Trice v. Brown - Docket No. 95-1153 (9 Vet. App. 245 (1996))
Claimant's notice of appeal was not timely filed with Court of Veterans Appeals because it was not received
within prescribed 120-day period.
10
-- Hill v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1009 (9 Vet. App. 246 (1996))
Notice of appeal was untimely.
-- Townsend v. Brown - Docket No. 95-1002 (9 Vet. App. 258 (1996))
Consolidated appeals on issue of whether Secretary of Veterans Affairs was required to allow cases to proceed
at administrative level by issuing a statement of the case were moot.
-- Thomas v. Brown - Docket No. 95-993 (9 Vet. App. 269 (1996))
Board of Veterans' Appeals fulfilled statutory requirement of sending copy of decision to claimant's last known
address.
-- Reich v. Brown - Docket No. 95-188 (9 Vet. App. 271 (1996))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over claim for which initial notice of dis-agreement was filed
before November 18, 1988.
-- Kuo v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1053 (9 Vet. App. 273 (1996))
Veteran abated finality of removal of Veterans' Appeals decision until denial of veteran's motion for
reconsideration by filing motion for reconsideration at Department of Veterans Affairs within 120-day time
period.
-- Dudnick v. Brown - Docket No. 96-327 (9 Vet. App. 397 (1996))
Veteran's written statement to Court of Appeals did not express clear intent to seek court review of Board of
Veterans' Appeals decision, so was not valid Notice of Appeal.
-- Perez v. Brown - Docket No. 95-652 (9 Vet. App. 452 (1996))
No exception to law of case doctrine applied for Secretary of Veterans Affairs to be able to avoid complying
with decision in closed case.
-- Means v. Brown - Docket No. (9 Vet. App. 482 (1996))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over appeal which was filed while claimant’s motion for
reconsideration was still pending before Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
-- Pulac v. Brown - Docket No. 96-1166 (10 Vet. App. 11 (1997))
Record did not contain any document that could be construed as jurisdiction conferring notice of disagreement
(NOD) with respect to clear and unmistakable error (CUE) claim.
--Phillips v. Brown - Docket No. 94-987 (10 Vet. App. 25 (1997))
Veteran failed to establish extraordinary circumstance warranting recall of mandate dismissing his appeal for
failure to file timely notice of appeal.
-- McNaron v. Brown - Docket No. 93-474 (10 Vet. App. 61 (1997))
Letter requesting reconsideration by Board of Veterans’ Appeals was not valid notice of appeal.
-- Martin v. Brown - Docket No. 96-342 (10 Vet. App. 100 (1997))
11
Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be granted second extension of time to file response to brief, but for less
time than requested.
-- Ehringer v. Brown - Docket No. 95-681 (10 Vet. App. 103 (1997))
Veteran filed timely notice of appeal from decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals within 120 days after denial
of reconsideration motion.
-- Murillo v. Brown - Docket No. 96-942 (10 Vet. App. 108 (1997))
Claimant failed to overcome presumption of regularity in Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ mailing copy of its
decision to claimant and representative.
-- Paniag v. Brown - Docket No. 95-728 (10 Vet. App 265 (1997))
Letters not considered by Board of Veterans’ Appeals were constructively part of record on appeal.
-- Henderson v. Brown No. 95-310 (10 Vet. App. 272 (1997))
Veteran’s widow could not be substituted to carry on appeal for decreased veteran.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 95-898 (10 Vet. App. 330 (1997))
Without medical documentation, veteran not entitled to expedited appeal, despite his age and condition.
-- Velez v. Gober - Docket No. 96-47 (10 Vet. App. 432 (1997))
Filing of notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit deprived Court of Veterans Appeals of
jurisdiction over case.
-- Donovan v. Gober - Docket No. 96-196 (11 Vet. App. 2 (1997))
Motion for panel review of a single judge’s decision not to disqualify himself is reviewable during pendency of
an appeal.
-- Morris v. West – Docket No. 98-53 (11 Vet. App. 174 (1998))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over veteran’s claim, absent decision of Board of Veterans
Appeals on claim.
-- Yu v. West – Docket No. 95-199 (11 Vet. App. 176 (1998))
Veteran did not establish perquisites for certification of question to toe Federal Circuit.
-- Bowey v. West – Docket No. 97-303 (11 Vet. App. 188 (1998))
Court of Veterans Appeals would affirm Board of Veterans’ Appeals order denying relief to claimant who
failed to establish threshold status as benefits-eligible veteran, even though BVA gave incorrect reasons for
denying relief.
-- Laruan v. West – Docket No. 96-179 (11 Vet. App. 80 (1998))
Medical studies were not part of record on appeal before Court of Veterans Appeals even though studies were
referred to in expert opinion letters on which Board of Veterans’ Appeals relied in denying benefits claim.
-- Bowey v. West – Docket No. 97-303 (11 Vet. App. 106 (1998))
VA letters relating to whether veteran was notified of results of VA examination would be included in record on
appeal.
-- Henderson v. West – Docket No. 95-310 (11 Vet. App. 111 (1998))
12
Veteran’s appeal was “pending” at time of veteran’s death, rendering appeal moot and warranting its dismissal.
-- Taylor v. West – Docket No. 95-1225 (11 Vet. App. 206 (1998))
Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) did not err in failing to address veteran’s request to reopen claim.
-- Shockley v. West – Docket No. 96-829 (11 Vet. App. 208 (1998))
Notice of appeal misdirected to VA’s General Counsel was untimely.
-- Baisden v. West – Docket No. 98-38 (11 Vet. App. 215 (1998))
Counter designated documents would be included in the record on appeal (ROA), considering ambiguity in the
regulations.
-- Sims v. West – Docket No. 97-1137 (11 Vet. App. 237 (1998))
No CUE claim could be asserted with respect to regional office (RO) rating decision which was subsumed by a
BVA decision.
-- Johnston v. West – Docket No. 97-144 (11 Vet. App. 240 (1998))
Veteran’s death while appeal was pending required dismissal of appeal.
-- Tidwell v. West – Docket No. 96-1778 (11 Vet. App. 242 (1998))
Videotape could not be considered constructively part of the record on appeal, absent indication that it was in
control of Secretary.
-- Wilhoite v. West – Docket No. 97-267 (11 Vet. App. 251 (1998))
Jurisdiction was lacking over veteran’s appeal from denial of motion for reconsideration of prior BVA decision.
--Wilson v. West – Docket No. 97-2304 (11 Vet. App. 253 (1998))
Document placed into the VA internal mailing system for delivery to the Postal Service has not been “mailed”
as required by rule governing service by mail.
-- Gantt v. West – Docket No. 97-2252 (11 Vet. App. 262 (1998))
Documents relating to veteran’s claim were constructively part of record on appeal.
-- Blount v. West – Docket No. 97-947 (11 Vet. App. 32 (1998))
Record on appeal could be supplemented with reverse side of form which was already part of record.
-- Blount v. West – Docket No. 97-947 (11 Vet. App. 37 (1998))
Postmark rule does not apply to motions for reconsideration before the BVA.
-- Linville v. West – Docket No. 97-66 (11 Vet. App. 60 (1998))
Board of Veterans’ Appeals did not have “constructive notice” of motion for reconsideration which was
mistakenly sent to a regional office (RO).
 Jaquay v. West – Docket No. 95-510 (11 Vet. App. 67 (1998))
Filing notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit on the same day that respondent filed a motion to stay order of the
Court of Veterans Appeals deprived Court of jurisdiction to consider motion.
-- In re Bailey – Docket No. 95-8002 (11 Vet. App. 348 (1998))
13
Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction over veteran’s appeal of Board of Veterans’ Appeals
(BVA) decision for which Notice of Disagreement (NOD) was filed fourteen years previously.
-- Lane v. West – Docket No. 98-650 (11 Vet. App. 412 (1998))
Deputy Vice Chairman of the BVA may rule on reconsideration motions.
-- Henderson v. West – Docket No. 95-310 (12 Vet App. 11 (1998))
Motion for reconsideration was timely filed.
-- Zajicek v. West – Docket No. 98-429 (12 Vet. App. 48 (1998))
Good cause existed to suspend the rule and limit appeallant’s filings.
-- Yu v. West – Docket No. 95-199 (12 Vet. App. 51 (1998))
Change in law during pendency of appeal required remand.
-- Pylman v. West – Docket No. 95-820 (12 Vet. App. 65 (1998))
Alleged mailing defect did not warrant equitable tolling of 120-day appeal period.
-- Shepard v. West – Docket No. 96-1147 (12 Vet. App. 107 (1998))
Mandate could issue on unappealed part of judgment.
-- Norris v. West – Docket No. 96-989 (12 Vet. App. 304 (1999)
Appellant did not establish ground for reinstatement of appeal.
-- McNaron v. West – Docket No. 93-474 (12 Vet. App. 334 (1999)
Document could not be counter designated as part of the record on appeal.
-- Brown v. West – Docket No. 98-1586 (12 Vet. App. 388 (1999))
Appellant could not raise new argument on appeal.
-- Lynch v. West – Docket No. 95-1100 (12 Vet. App. 391 (1999))
Equitable tolling not applicable to excusable neglect claim.
-- Leonard v. West – Docket No. 97-1332 (12 Vet. App. 554 (1999))
Death of veteran prior to issuance of mandate required dismissal of appeal.
-- Keen v. West – Docket No. 96-299 (13 Vet. App. 29 (1999))
Veteran’s letter did not toll 120-day appeal period.
-- Brown v. West – Docket No. 98-1777 (13 Vet. App. 88 (1999))
Notice of appeal was timely.
-- Curtis v. West – Docket No. 99-752 (13 Vet. App. 114 (1999))
Stamp-grant of Secretary’s motion revoked upon appellant’s objection.
-- Lee v. West – Docket No. 98-726 (13 Vet. App. 131 (1999))
Notice of appeal was timely filed.
-- Kight v. West – Docket No. 99-1070 (13 Vet. App. 132 (1999))
14
Item could not be included in record on appeal (ROA).
-- Brokaw v. West – Docket No. 99-822 (13 Vet. App. 134 (1999))
Secretary’s motion for extension of time granted despite veteran’s objection.
-- Lee v. West – Docket No. 98-726 (13 Vet. App. 137 (1999))
Forwarding of BVA decision by “flat mail” did not comply with statute.
-- Ryan v. West – Docket No. 96-938 (13 Vet. App. 151 (1999))
Veteran’s death rendered appeal moot.
-- Swanson v. West – Docket No. 95-1082 (13 Vet. App. 197 (1999))
Jurisdiction was lacking absent notice of disagreement (NOD).
-- Sagnella v. West – Docket No. 98-1169 (13 Vet. App. 313 (2000))
Veteran presented no basis for exceeding page limit on briefs.
-- Snyder v. West – Docket No. 98-2219, 99-1164 (13 Vet. App. 362 (2000)
Party may not request full Court decision on panel’s resolution of procedural motion.
-- Snyder v. West – Docket No. 98-2219, 99-1164 (13 Vet. App. 416 (2000))
Appeal was untimely.
-- Pogue v. West – Docket No. 96-1321 (13 Vet. App. 368 (2000))
Movant did not show basis for full Court decision.
-- Barrera v. West – Docket No. 90-1496 (13 Vet. App. 418 (2000))
Veterans did not show that documents were constructively part of the record.
-- Lucero v. West – Docket No. 99-1311 (13 Vet. App. 430 (2000))
Surviving spouse of veteran who died after board decision lacked standing to appeal.
-- Kelsey v. West – Docket No. 99-1919 (13 Vet. App. 437 (2000))
No jurisdiction to review manner in which special adaptive housing grant was disbursed
-- Werden V. West – Docket No. 98-1372 (13 Vet. App. 463 (2000))
Appeal was rendered moot when action to recover debt was stopped.
-- Donovan v. West – Docket No. 95-519 (13 Vet. App. 489 (2000))
Board decision was inadequate for appellate review, requiring remand.
-- Sanders v. West – Docket No. 99-270 (13 Vet. App., 491 (2000))
Veteran’s spouse lacked standing to appeal from denial of claim.
-- Redding v. West – Docket No. 98-52 (13 Vet. App., 512 (2000))
No basis for equitable tolling of judicial appeal period.
15
-- Santoro v. West – Docket No. 98-2373 (13 Vet. App., 516 (2000))
Misleading advice by county employee did not warrant equitable tolling of appeal period.
-- Smith v. West – Docket No. 99-988 (13 Vet. App., 525 (2000))
Consolidation of appeals was not warranted in the interest of judicial economy.
-- McCormick v. West – Docket No. 98-48 (13 Vet. App., 533 (2000))
BVA erred in failing to apply presumption of credibility for favorable evidence.
-- Beck v. West – Docket No. 97-1884 (13 Vet. App., 535 (2000))
Subsequent decision necessitated recall of mandate.
-- Snyder v. Gober – Docket No. 97-2132 (14 Vet. App., 146 (2000))
Vacatur was appropriate remedy for veteran’s death while appeal was pending.
-- Morton v. Gober – Docket No. 96-1517 (14 Vet. App., 175 (2000))
Veterans death pending appeal required vacation and dismissal.
-- Kessel v. Gober – Docket No. 98-772 (14 Vet. App., 185 (2000))
Jurisdiction was lacking to review CUE claim raised for the first time on appeal.
-- Bradley v. Principi – Docket No. 97-526 (14 Vet. App., 255 (2001))
Board did not violate statute and regulation requiring it to make adequate findings and conclusions.
-- Morris v. Principi – Docket No. 00-7058 (239 F3d 1292 (Fed.Cir. (2001))
Remand was required to determine which version of the law was most favorable.
-- Meek v. Principi – Docket No. 97-1657 (14 Vet. App., 322 (2001))
Rating-increase claim required consideration of the VCCA.
-- Holliday v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1788 (14 Vet. App., 327 (2001))
Remand decision will be rendered on narrowest possible grounds.
-- Best v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1144 (15 Vet. App., 18(2001))
Notice of appeal (NOA) was untimely.
-- Clark v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1263 (15 Vet. App., 61 (2001))
Appellant did not show good cause for extension of time to file appeal.
-- Morgan v. Principi – Docket No. 00-329 (16 Vet. App., 20 (2001))
Briefing required on issue of timeliness of notice of appeal (NOA).
-- Evans v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1695 (16 Vet. App., 28 (2002))
Veteran’s notice of appeal (NOA) was timely.
-- Browne v. Principi – Docket No. 01-2036 (16 Vet. App., 278 (2002))
16
Veteran’s letter met statutory requirement of appeal application.
-- Myers v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1267 (16 Vet. App., 228 (2002))
Veteran’s death required vacation of BVA decision and dismissal of appeal.
-- Brown v, Principi – Docket No. 96-114 (16 Vet. App., 487 (2002))
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims could not adjudicate TDIU claim in the first instance.
-- Roberson v. Principi – Docket No. 97-1971 (17 Vet. App.,135 (2003))
Evidence rebutted presumption of regularity of mailing.
-- Crain v. Principi – Docket No. 01-2076 (17 Vet. App., 182 (2003))
Board of Veterans Appeals erred in failing to discuss notice requirements added by the VCCA.
-- Huston v. Principi – Docket No. 01-575 (17 Vet. App., 195 (2003))
Court did not have jurisdiction to review decision of Veterans Court.
-- Cook v. Principi – Docket No. 03-7041 (353 F.3d 937 (Fed. Cir. 2003))
Assertion of nonreceipt necessary to trigger inquiry into presumption of regularity.
-- Baxter v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1202 (17 Vet. App., 407 (2004))
“One review” rule precluded Board’s consideration of additional medical evidence.
-- Padgett v. Principi – Docket No. 02-2259 (18 Vet. App., 188 (2004))
Court of Appeals did not have jurisdiction over veteran’s appeal.
-- Milton v. Principi – Docket No. 04-7102 (110 Fed. Appx., 101 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
Finding that veteran withdrew his appeal was clearly erroneous.
-- Kalman v. Principi – Docket No. 03-0947 (18 Vet. App., 522 (2004))
Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over veteran’s appeal from Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
-- Jackson v. Principi – Docket No. 04-7087 (115 Fed. Appx. 54 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
Order of Veterans Court vacating and remanding a decision of Board of Veterans Appeals was not an
appealable final decision.
-- Jones v. Principi – Docket No. 04-7114 (118 Fed. Appx. 508 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
APPELLATE BRIEFS: Secretary of Veterans Affairs was not entitled to file revisions to appellate brief.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-926 (1 Vet. App. 479 (1991))
No sanctions would be imposed against Secretary of Veterans Affairs or representative for failing to timely file
request for extension of time to answer appellate brief.
-- Miranda v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-501 (2 Vet. App. 453 (1992))
Heavy caseload on part of Secretary of Veterans Affairs was not extraordinary circumstance warranting
additional extension of time to file brief.
-- Pergola v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1307 (2 Vet. App. 180 (1991))
17
When counsel for Secretary of Veterans Affairs is on notice that pro se veteran has filed appellate brief, in
action until Court of Veterans Appeals elects to issue order is inappropriate.
-- Ramirez v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-636 (2 Vet. App. 200 (1992))
Request of veteran's counsel that Court of Veterans Appeals decide case based solely upon record on appeal
was not appropriate or sufficient response to court rules or court orders requiring that veteran file appellate
brief.
-- Lemmons v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1316 (2 Vet. App. 222 (1992))
Veteran's appellate brief was inadequate.
-- Anders v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-569(2 Vet. App. 223 (1992))
Appellant's pleading did not comply with rules of practice and procedure for an appellant's brief.
-- Anders v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-569 (2 Vet. App. 302 (1992))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs was not entitled to extension of time to file response to veteran's brief.
-- Dupell v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1094 (2 Vet. App. 385 (1992))
There was no acceptable reason for secretary of Veterans Affairs to fail to timely request extension of time to
respond to claimant's brief.
-- Larue v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1182 (2 Vet. App. 386 (1992))
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Jurisdiction of Court of Veterans Appeals was limited to review of Board of
Veterans' Appeals decision, without regard to later regional office rating decision.
-- Hartog v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1505 (2 Vet. App. 194 (1992))
Evidentiary equipoise rule does not apply to factual matters concerning jurisdiction of Court of Veterans
Appeals.
-- Bethea v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-914 (2 Vet. App. 252 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals lacks jurisdiction to review grant of equitable relief by Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
-- Darrow v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1225 (2 Vet. App. 303 (1992))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over appeal.
-- Bond v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1266 (2 Vet. App. 376 (1992))
APPELLATE PROCEDURE: Secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs was not entitled to order
extending time to file record on appeal.
-- Kushindana v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-379 (2 Vet. App. 73 (1991))
General Counsel having defaulted in obligation to brief position of Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be
deemed to have conceded validity of appellant's legally plausible position.
-- MacWhorter v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-935 (2 Vet. App. 133 (1992))
18
APPELLATE RECORD: CAT scan was before the Secretary and Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) when
BVA decision was made and, thus, was to be included in record on appeal.
-- Hulsey v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1503 (3 Vet. App. 486 (1992))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs has obligation to transmit legible pages of record on appeal or explanation as to
why illegibility exists.
-- Fritz v. Brown - Docket No. 92-316 (4 Vet. App. 462 (1993))
Veteran was entitled to have records of his appeal sealed.
-- Martin v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1449 (3 Vet. App. 510 (1992))
Evidence obtained since decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) could be submitted to Department of
Veterans Affairs regional office in attempt to reopen former claim but could not be made part of record on
appeal before Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- Hartog v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1505 (2 Vet. App. 194 (1992))
Heavy case load and administrative delays do not constitute extraordinary circumstances warranting extensions
of time for filing record on appeal.
-- Brimmer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-70 (2 Vet. App. 266 (1992))
Record on appeal from decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals consisted only of record of proceedings before
Secretary of Veterans Affairs and BVA.
-- Miller v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-786 (2 Vet. App. 40 (1991))
Medical report referred to in veteran's counter-designation which could not be found in his claims file was
presumed not to have been part of record.
-- Looper v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-602 (2 Vet. App. 45 (1991))
Copies of medical treatises cited by Board of Veterans' Appeals shall be made part of record on appeal.
-- Colvin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-196 (1 Vet. App. 171 (1991))
Claimant failed to establish that he designated local representative in block of form for designating personal
representative.
-- Leonard v. Brown - Docket No. 95-1260 (1 Vet. App. 315 (1997))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction to order production of certified list before transmission of record
on appeal.
-- Boggs v. Brown - Docket No. 96-1624 (10 Vet. App. 320 (1997))
APPORTIONMENT: Veteran was not entitled to discontinuation of the apportionment of his improved
disability benefits on behalf of his minor child.
-- Hall v. Brown - Docket No. 92-532 (5 Vet. App. 294 (1993))
ARTHRITIS: Board of Veterans' Appeals' denial of service connection for post-traumatic
of right shoulder was arbitrary and capricious.
-- Bailey v. Derwinski - Docket No. 214 (1 Vet. App. 441 (1991))
19
osteoarthritis
BVA failed to explain adequately its reasons for rejecting X-ray evidence of veteran's
conclusions regarding his employability, warranting remand.
-- Anderson v. Brown - Docket No. 90-798 (5 Vet. App. 347 (1993))
arthritis and its
Veteran was not entitled to service connection for traumatic arthritis.
-- Cross v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-869 (2 Vet. App. 150 (1992))
ASBESTOS: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to adequately consider VA guidelines for asbestos
compensation claims when it denied service connection for polycythemia rubra vera and chronic pulmonary
disorder.
-- Ennis v. Principi - Docket No. 91-836 (4 Vet. App. 50 (1993))
Board failed to give adequate reasons or bases for disregarding medical opinions that veteran's asbestosis was
service connected.
-- Hogwood v. Principi - Docket No. 91-546 (3 Vet. App. 409 (1992))
ATTORNEY FEES: Chairman of Board of Veterans' Appeals has no power to review attorney fee agreements
for representation at administrative level.
-- Matter of Smith - Docket No. 90-58, 91-619 (1 Vet. App. 492 (1991))
Death of veteran was not jurisdictional bar to otherwise proper application for attorney fees under Equal Access
to Justice Act.
-- Cohen v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1231 (8 Vet. App. 5 (1995))
Veteran was not entitled to an award of attorney fees under the Equal Access Justice Act.
-- Carpenito v. Brown - Docket No. 93-554 (7 Vet. App. 534 (1995))
Veteran who prevailed on claim for total disability based on individual unemployability was not entitled to
EAJA attorney fees and expenses.
--Bowyer v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1188 (7 Vet. App. 549 (1995))
Veteran was entitled to file documents concerning post remand proceedings in support of applications for EAJA
attorney fees.
--ZP v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1303 (7 Vet. App. 541 (1995))
Hours reasonably expended for purposes of claim for Equal Access to Justice Act fees did not include time
spent on issues that were rejected by the court.
-- Uttieri v. Brown - Docket No. 94-409 (7 Vet. App. 415 (1995))
Prevailing veteran was entitled to recover attorney fees under Equal Access to Justice Act.
-- Penny v. Brown - Docket No. 93-12 (7 Vet. App. 348 (1995))
Custodian for minor child seeking dependency and indemnity compensation was not entitled to attorney fees
and expenses under Equal Access to Justice Act.
-- Golliday v. Brown - Docket No. 93-261 (7 Vet. App. 249 (1994))
20
Department of Veterans Affairs was substantially justified in withholding benefits under subsequently
invalidated regulation empowering VA to withhold benefits for claimant who was rated competent for at least
six months before being re-rated incompetent.
-- Felton v. Brown - Docket No. 90-965 (7 Vet. App. 276 (1994))
Secretary's motion for judgment on veteran's application for attorney fees under Equal Access to Justice Act
consistent with Federal Rule of Civil procedure on offers of settlement would be dismissed.
-- Hines v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2169 (7 Vet. App. 309 (1994))
Anti-Assignment Act precluded law firm from asserting lien under state attorney's lien statute.
-- Pierce v. Brown - Docket No. 93-482 (7 Vet. App. 357 (1995))
Veteran's application for attorney fees under Equal Access to Justice Act would be dismissed as veteran filed to
allege that government's position was not substantially justified.
-- Franklin v. Brown - Docket No. 92-487 (7 Vet. App. 389 (1995))
Court of Veterans Appeals declined to exercise review prerogative to review attorney's fee agreement with
claimant whose appeal was dismissed.
-- In re Smith - Docket No. 94-657 (7 Vet. App. 89 (1994))
Veteran not entitled to EAJA prevailing party attorney fee award in case in which government's position was
substantially justified.
-- Olney v. Brown - Docket No. 92-783 (7 Vet. App. 160 (1994))
Veteran was not entitled to attorney fees under Equal Access to Justice Act in connection with his pro se
appearance before Court of Veterans Appeals in successful appeal.
-- March v. Brown - Docket No. 1104 (7 Vet. App. 163 (1994))
Veteran was entitled to award of computer legal research expenses under Equal Access to Justice Act.
--Elcyzyn v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1664 (7 Vet. App. 170 (1994))
Court of Veterans Appeals may not waive 30-day period of submitting fee application under Equal Access to
Justice Act.
-- Grivois v. Brown - Docket No. 92-289 (7 Vet. App. 100 (1994))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs was not obligated to pay veteran's attorney directly out of fund of past-due
benefits.
-- Felton v. Brown - Docket No. 90-965 (6 Vet. App. 404 (1994))
Although 20% contingency fee called for in fee agreement was not excessive or unreasonable, court lacked
power to order client to pay fees to his attorney.
-- Matter of Ford - Docket No. 90-853 (6 Vet. App. 262 (1994))
Spouse who prevailed on claim to dependency and indemnity compensation was not entitled to attorney fees
under Equal Access to Justice Act.
-- Stillwell v. Brown - Docket No. 92-205 (6 Vet. App. 291 (1994))
Veteran was not entitled to award of attorney fees or costs in connection with successful representation by
unsupervised, non-attorney practitioner.
21
-- Cook v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1535 (6 Vet. App. 226 (1994))
Amendment making EAJA applicable to future appeals brought before Court of Veterans Appeals as well as
"pending" cases did not apply to cases pending only on EAJA applications.
-- Jones v. Brown - Docket No. 90-58 (6 Vet. App. 101 (1993))
Attorney was not entitled to fees in excess of $10 for representation of veteran on claim in which Notice of
Disagreement was filed before November 18, 1988.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1276 (6 Vet. App. 25 (1993))
Attorney was entitled to be paid his agreed-upon fee directly by Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
-- Matter of Fee Agreement of Smith - Docket No. 91-1058 (5 Vet. App. 307 (1993))
Veterans represented by attorneys were not entitled to extraordinary writ prohibiting Board of Veterans'
Appeals from continuing premature review of fee agreements.
-- Nagler v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1137, 90-649 (1 Vet. App. 297 (1991))
Statute prohibiting assignment of payments of benefits except to the extent specifically authorized by law did
not limit Secretary's obligation with regard to payment of attorney fees from past-due benefits.
-- Aronson v. Derwinski-Docket No. 92-561 (2 Vet. App. 580 (1992))
Applications for attorney fees were untimely when not received by court within 30 days of final judgment.
-- Jennings v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1474, 92-866 (7 Vet. App. 201 (1994))
EAJA attorney fees awarded where attorney was paid by fee agreement go first to reimburse veteran amount
paid to attorney pursuant to fee agreement.
-- Curtis v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1446 (8 Vet. App. 104 (1995))
Applicant was not entitled to amend timely filed Equal Access to Justice Act application after filing period
expired to add statement of his financial eligibility.
-- Jensen v. Brown - Docket No. 90-661 (8 Vet. App. 140 (1995)
Government's position that veteran's widow was obligated to repay dependency and indemnity compensation
benefits that she received after holding herself out as spouse of another person was not substantially justified.
-- Doria v. Brown - Docket No. 90-626 (8 Vet. App. 157 (1995))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs' position was substantially justified.
-- Dillon v. Brown - Docket No. 94-114 (8 Vet. App. 165 (1995))
Veteran could not recover attorney fees paid as a result of contingency fee agreement which exceeded Equal
Access to Justice Act fee cap.
-- Jurgens v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1188 (8 Vet. App. 197 (1995))
Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction to consider veteran's application for reasonable attorney
fees under Equal Access to Justice Act.
-- Knight v. Brown - Docket No. 93-818 (8 Vet. App. 212 (1995))
Successful surviving spouse death benefits claimant was awarded EAJA fees and costs.
-- Camphor v. Brown - Docket No. 92-631 (8 Vet. App. 272 (1995))
22
Veteran was entitled to EAJA attorney fees and expenses where government's position at administrative level
was not substantially justified.
-- ZP v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1303 (8 Vet. App. 303 (1995))
Where Court of Veterans Appeals did not retain continuing jurisdiction, veteran could not recover EAJA fees
for 20 hours for counsel's representation in post remand proceedings.
-- Cleary v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2006 (8 Vet. App. 305 (1995))
Veteran who prevailed on two of three claims on appeal was entitled to award based on 95 percent of hours
claimed.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 93-478 (8 Vet. App. 327 (1995))
Claimant was entitled to additional amount of attorney fees for time spent preparing reply brief for claim under
Equal Access to Justice Act.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 93-478 (8 Vet. App. 331 (1995))
Payment to counsel of attorney fee not exceeding 20% of past-due benefits awarded to veteran was reasonable.
-- Matter of Vernon - Docket No. (8 Vet. App. 457 (1996))
Prevailing veteran was entitled to award of attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act
(EAJA).
-- Vidal v. Brown - Docket No. 93-429 (8 Vet. App. 488 (1996))
Veteran's failure to timely file application under Equal Access to Justice Act precluded Court of Veterans
Appeals from considering application.
-- Strouth v. Brown - Docket No. 91-648 (8 Vet. App. 502 (1996))
Appellant was not prevailing party under Equal Access to Justice Act based on reconsideration that was
apparently administrative act wholly independent of litigation.
-- Lematta v. Brown - Docket No. 93-923 (8 Vet. App. 504 (1996))
Position of Secretary of Veterans Affairs was substantially justified under then existing law, making attorney
fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act inappropriate.
-- Graves v. Brown - Docket No. 94-915 (9 Vet. App. 172 (1996))
Claimant was entitled to compensation under Equal Access to Justice Act for full 85 attorney research hours
sought.
-- Sandoval v. Brown - Docket No. 92-168 (9 Vet. App. 177 (1996))
Claimant's Equal Access to Justice Act application for attorney fees, received by Court of Veterans Appeals on
August 20, 1992 and filed on September 15, 1992, was pending when Federal Courts Administration Act
became effective.
-- Onstad v. Brown - Docket No. 90-753 (9 Vet. App. 189 (1996))
Court of Veterans Appeals properly reduced by one-third amount claimant requested for litigating entitlement to
fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act.
-- Cleary v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2006 (6 Vet. App. 201 (1996))
23
Appellant seeking attorney fees under Equal Access to Justice Act must submit complete, nondefective
application within 30-day period.
-- Bazalo v. Brown - Docket No. 93-660 (9 Vet. App. 304 (1996))
Appellant did not show that his net worth was less than Equal Access to Justice Act statutory maximum within
30-day filing period, as required to satisfy jurisdictional requirements of EAJA.
-- Jensen v. Brown - Docket No. 90-661 (9 Vet. App. 333 (1996))
Veteran's attorney was not entitled to recover fees from past-due benefits awarded to veteran for total rating
based on individual unemployability and special monthly compensation, which were not reasonably raised
before Board of Veterans' Appeals.
-- Matter of Fee Agreement of Leventhal - Docket No. 95-718 (9 Vet. App. 387 (1996))
Administrative position of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs was substantially justified, since remand was
granted based on intervening decision that represented change of law.
-- Locher v. Brown - Docket No.
Claimant’s participation in Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program was not sufficient evidence that his net
worth did not exceed $2 million.
-- Moore v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1151 (10 Vet. App. 2 (1996))
Hours requested by veteran for attorney’s record review and preparation of motion for summary reversal were
not unreasonable or excessive.
-- Ussery v. Brown - Docket No. 93-0696 (10 Vet. App. 51 (1997))
Veteran’s reference to prior motion and affidavit to appeal without payment of costs was sufficient to show that
he was eligible for award of fees under Equal Access to Justice Act.
-- Owens v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1106 (10 Vet. App. 65 (1997))
Appellant’s allegation that he was entitled under Equal Access to Justice Act to certain amount in fees and
expenses was not sufficient to show his eligibility under Act.
-- Bielby v. Brown - Docket No. (10 Vet. App. 91 (1997))
Regulation regulation requiring final decision by Board of Veterans’ Appeals on issue before attorney fees may
be charged was valid.
-- Matter of Stanley - Docket No. 96-0017 (10 Vet. App. 104 (1997))
Initial itemized statement of fees sought in EAJA application satisfied jurisdictional requirement for court’s
consideration.
-- Guzman-Diaz v. Brown Docket No. 96-84 (10 Vet. App. 233 (1997))
Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ failure to adjudicate veteran’s claim was final adverse decision supporting award
of attorney fees.
-- Mater of Smith - Docket No. 95-307 (10 Vet. App. 311 (1997))
Claimant’s attorney was not entitled to writ of mandamus compelling Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ to issue final
decision on his claim to payment
24
-- Matter of Cox - Docket No. 95-1068 (10 Vet. App. 361 (1997))
Secretary’s failure to obtain veteran’s education and vocational rehabilitation records before considering TDIU
claim was not substantially justified for purposes of fees under EAJA.
-- Moore v. Gober - Docket No. 89-79 (10 Vet. App. 436 (1997))
Appellant’s application for attorney fees under Equal Access to Justice Act was not timely.
-- Nord v. Gober - Docket No. 96-949 (10 Vet. App. 442 (1997))
Veteran did not establish that he was a “prevailing party” for purpose of award of attorney fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
-- Chandler v. Gober - Docket No. 96-1171 (11 Vet. App. 6 (1997))
Final adverse BVA decision existed as to claims, entitling attorney to fees from past-due benefits.
-- Matter of Fee agreement of Cox – Case Number 91-326 (11 Vet. App. 158 (1998))
Position of the Secretary was substantially justified, precluding award of attorney fees under the EAJA.
-- Helfer, v. West – Docket No. 95-1237 (11 Vet. App. 178 (1998))
Provisions of attorney fee agreement denying EAJA offset appeared unreasonable on their face.
-- Gaines v. West – Docket No. 97-39 (11 Vet. App. 113 (1998))
Nine hours to prepare application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was not
excessive.
-- Similes v. West – Docket No. 95-906 (11 Vet. App. 115 (1998))
Failure of attorneys who submitted EAJA application to file notice of appearance warranted rejection of
application.
-- McNeely v. Gober – Docket No. 95-1000 (11 Vet. App. 191 (1997))
Secretary failed to show good cause to justify recall of mandate granting application for attorney fees.
-- Simeon v. West – Docket No. 97-558 (11 Vet. App. 245 (1998))
Supplemental itemization required for attorney fee request under the EAJA, where the Court of Veterans
Appeals was unable to determine how much time was expended upon particular tasks.
-- Chesser v. West – Docket No. 96-688 (11 Vet. App. 247 (1998))
Application for award of attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) dismissed as
untimely.
-- Paige v. West – Docket No. 97-1053 (11 Vet. App. 266 (1998))
Veteran was not entitled to attorney fees under the EAJA for work done on unsuccessful motion for sanctions.
-- Perry v. West – Docket No. 94-962 (11 Vet. App. 319 (1998))
Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction to consider veteran’s application for costs and fees under
the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) in connection with veteran’s mandamus petition seeking past-due
benefits that were being withheld.
-- Heath v. West – Docket No. 97-2098 (11 Vet. App. 400 (1998))
25
Provisions in attorney fee agreement were unenforceable.
-- Carpenter v. West – Docket No. 96-95 (12 Vet. App. 52 (1998))
Position of government was substantially justified, precluding EAJA award.
-- Rhodan v. West – Docket No. 96-1080 ( 12 Vet. App. 55 (1998))
Death of appellant precluded EAJA application.
-- Kawad v. West – Docket No. 95-445 (12 Vet. App. 61 (1998))
Fee agreement which purported to give attorney a lien on claim for VA benefits was unenforceable.
Vargas-Gonzales v. West – Docket No. 96-536 ( 12 Vet. App. 63 (1998))
Hours expended on jurisdictional issue were recoverable under the EAJA.
-- Calma v. West – Docket No. 95-138 (12 Vet. App. 66 (1998))
Position of the Secretary was substantially justified, precluding award.
-- Pierre v. West – Docket No. 96-228 (12 Vet. App. 92 (1998))
Position of the Secretary was substantially justified, precluding EAJA award.
-- Stephens v. West – Docket No. 97-702 (12 Vet. App. 115 (1999))
Jurisdiction existed over “wrap-up” application for attorney fees and expenses.
-- McNeely v. West – Docket No. 95-1000 (12 Vet. App. 162 (1999))
Provision in attorney fee agreement was unreasonable and unenforceable.
-- Wingo v. West – Docket No. 95-1085 (12 Vet. App. 305 (1999))
VA’s position was substantially justified, precluding EAJA award.
-- Carpenter v. West – Docket No. 96-95 (12 Vet. App. 316 (1999))
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is not an “agency” within meaning of the EAJA.
-- Wisner v. West – Docket No. 97-701 & 97-1454 (12 Vet. App. 330 (1999))
Request for attorney fees under the EAJA is required to be in good faith.
-- Suozzi v. West – Docket No. 95-395 (12 Vet. App. 339 (1999))
Position of the Secretary was not substantially justified for EAJA purposes.
-- Jackson v. West – Docket No. 96-619 (12 Vet. App. 422 (1999))
Local consumer price index (CPI) should be used to calculate inflation rate.
-- Mannino v. West – Docket No. 97-784 (12 Vet App. 242 (1999))
Position of the Secretary was substantially justified, precluding award of fees.
-- Clemmons v. West – Docket No. 97-2138 (12 Vet. App. 245 (1999))
Attorney had standing to appeal decision affecting amount of attorney fees.
26
-- Cox v. West – Docket No. 99-263 (12 Vet. App. 522 (1999))
Administrative position of the Secretary was not substantially justified.
-- Jacobsen v. West – Docket No. 97-309 (12 Vet. App. 546 (1999))
Lien provision in fee agreement was unenforceable.
-- Busch v. West – Docket No. 97-2222 (12 Vet. App. 552 (1999))
Position of the government at the administrative stage was not substantially justified.
-- West v. West – Docket No. 98-446 (13 Vet. App. 25 (1999))
Attorney not entitled to fees for representation before the Board.
-- In re Mason – Docket No. 96-1663 (13 Vet. App. 79 (1999))
Termination of attorney-client relationship precluded enforcement of fee agreement.
-- Scates v. West – Docket No. 97-875 (13 Vet. App. 98 (1999))
EAJA application was untimely.
-- Jones v. West – Docket No. 98-1613 (13 Vet. App. 129 (1999))
Award of attorney fees was barred by res judicata.
-- Barrera v. West – Docket No. 90-1496 (13 Vet. App. 139 (1999))
Provision in fee agreement was unreasonable and unenforceable.
-- Fritz v. West – Docket No. 97-2323 (13 Vet. App. 190 (1999))
Secretary is obligated to pay directly to the attorney 20% of past due benefits.
-- Snyder v. West – Docket No. 98-2219, 99-1164 (13 Vet. App. 244 (1999))
EAJA application dismissed as premature.
-- Cox v. West – Docket No. 98-1068 (13 Vet. App. 364 (2000)
Attorney not entitled to fee on issue not decided by the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA).
-- In re Fee Agreement of Carpenter – Docket No. 97-676 (13 Vet. App. 382 (2000))
EAJA fees can be awarded for work done prior to formal fee agreement.
-- Rozmus v. West – Docket No. 98-459, 98-1428 (13 Vet. App. 386 (2000)
EAJA fees could not be awarded for fee-agreement litigation.
-- Fritz v. West – Docket No. 97-2323 (13Vet. App. 439 (2000))
Attorney fee appeal stayed to allow veterans to seek representation
-- Cox v. West – Docket No.95-1068, 99-1250 (13 Vet. App. 461 (2000))
Court Lacked Jurisdiction to consider EAJA application.
-- Hudson v. West - Docket No. 97-1220 (13 Vet. App. 470 (2000))
27
Veteran did not show he was prevailing party for purpose of EAJA award.
-- Maddalino v. West – Docket No. 98-2251 (13 Vet. App. 475 (2000))
Lien provision in attorney fee agreement was pro bono.
-- Farmer v. West – Docket No. 98-2324 (13 Vet. App., 525 (2000))
EAJA application was jurisdictionally deficient.
-- Scarborough v. West – Docket No. 98-1590 (13 Vet. App., 530 (2000))
Defective EAJA application dismissed where representative was pro bono.
-- Jones v. West – Docket No. 97-1547 (13 Vet. App., 543 92000))
Attorney fee provision was unreasonable and unenforceable.
-- Teten v. West – Docket No.98-1244 (13 Vet. App., 545 (2000))
Position of the VA was substantially justified, precluding EAJA award.
-- Vaughn v. West – Docket No. 98-269 (13 Vet. App., 550 (2000))
BVA does not have jurisdiction to consider eligibility for attorney fee award.
-- Scates v. Gober – Docket No. 97-875 (14 Vet. App., 62 (2000))
Attorney entitle to fees for work on amicus and supplemental briefs dealing with same issue.
-- Swiney v. Gober – Docket No. 96-302 (14 Vet. App., 65 (2000))
Secretary’s position was substantially justified, precluding EAJA award.
-- Vaughn v. Gober – Docket No.98-269 (14 Vet. App., 92 (2000))
Attorney was entitled to direct payment of fee by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs(VA).
-- Cox v. Gober – Docket Nos. 95-1068,99-1250 (14 Vet. App., 148 (2000))
Mistaken disbursement to veteran does not relieve Secretary of direct-payment obligation.
-- Snyder v. Gober – Docket No. 98-2219, 99-1164 (14 Vet. App., 154 (2000))
There was no basis for equitable tolling of EAJA filing deadline.
-- Lee v. Gober – Docket No. 98-726 (14 Vet. App., 204 (2000))
Position of VA was substantially justified, precluding award of attorney fees.
-- Haywood v. Gober – Docket No. 97-25 (14 Vet. App., 212 (2000))
EAJA record in settled cases includes record created below.
-- Cullens v. Gober – Docket No. 99-364 (14 Vet. App., 234(2001))
Legal fees performed by non-attorney practioner may be compensable under the EAJA>
-- McCraken v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1555 (14 Vet. App., 269 (2001))
Causation required for recovery under EAJA pursuant to catalyst theory may be based on timing of events
alone.
28
-- Miley v. Principi – Docket No. 00-7104 (242 F.3d 1050(Fed. Cir. 2001))
Enhancement of contingency fee by EAJA award is unreasonable.
-- Carpenter v. Principi – Docket No. 99-794 (15 Vet. App., 64 (2001))
Dismissal on jurisdictional grounds was not law of the case for purposes of attorney fee request.
-- Hudson v. Principi – Docket No.00-7141 (260 F. 3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2001))
Catalyst theory no longer available to establish “prevailing-party” status.
-- Thayer v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1782 (15 Vet. App., 204 (2001))
Appellant was not a prevailing party for purposes of EAJA attorney fee award.
-- Vaughn v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1543 (15 Vet. App., 277 (2001))
Erroneous payment to veteran did not preclude attorney’s entitlement to award of fees.
-- Cox v. Principi – Docket No. 95-1068, 99-1250 (15 Vet. App., 280 (2001))
Attorney was entitled to 20% as past-due benefits mistakenly disbursed to veteran.
-- Snyder v. Principi – Docket No. 98-2219, 99-1164 (15 Vet. App., 285 (2001))
Remand based on the VCCA did not confer prevailing party status under the EAJA.
-- Fandry v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1897 (15 Vet. App., 299 (2001))
Remand afforded appellant prevailing party status for purpose of EAJA.
-- Cycholl v. Principi – Docket No. 00-2454 (15 Vet. App., 355(2001))
No Blanket requirement that notice of appearance be filed for EAJA reimbursement.
-- Bowling v. Principi – Docket No. 99-2264 (15 Vet. App., 379 (2002))
Attorney fee application stayed pending disposition of similar case.
-- Flemming v. Principi – Docket No. 97-2150 (15 Vet. App., 241 (2001))
Remand confers prevailing party status only if predicated on administrative error.
-- Sumner v. Principi – Docket No. 99-368 (15 Vet. App., 256 (2001))
Remands did not confer EAJA prevailing party status on appellant.
-- Sachs v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1632 (15 Vet. App., 414 (2002))
Court lacked jurisdiction over EAJA application where it lacked jurisdiction over underlying claim.
-- Halpern v. Principi – Docket No.99-1472 (15 Vet. App., 416 (2002))
Remand based on change in caselaw did not confer EAJA “prevailing party” status.
-- Flemming v. Principi – Docket No. 97-2150 (16 Vet. App., 52 (2002))
Secretary’s position was substantially justified precluding EAJA award.
-- Smith v. Principi – Docket No. 01-547 (16 Vet. App., 71 (2002))
Veteran’s application for attorney fees under the EAJA was timely.
29
-- Luyster v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1271 (16 Vet. App., 96 (2002))
Position of the Secretary was not substantially justified so as preclude EAJA award.
-- Teten v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1244 (16 Vet. App., 112 (2002))
Second supplemental EAJA application considered timely.
-- Fritz v. Principi – Docket No. 97-2323 (16 Vet. App., 179 (2002))
Veteran whose claim was remanded was not “prevailing party” for purposes of the EAJA.
-- D’Amico v. Principi – Docket No. 97-786 (16 Vet. App., 191 (2002))
Remand order did not confer “prevailing party” statue on veteran.
-- Briddell v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1198 (16 Vet. App., 267 (2002))
Veteran was prevailing party for purposes of EAJA award.
-- McCormick v. Principi – Docket No. 98-48 (16 Vet. App., 407 (2002))
No EAJA fees were awardable for attorney’s work after withdrawal from case.
-- Smith v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1202 (16 Vet. App., 417 (2002))
Position of the Secretary was not substantially justified, so to preclude EAJA award.
-- Thompson v. Principi – Docket No. 99-515 (16 Vet. App., 467 (2002))
Secretary’s Position was substantially justified, precluding EAJA award.
-- Ozer v. Principi – Docket No. 98-57 (16 Vet. App., 475 (2002))
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims can award fees for work before the Federal Circuit.
-- Hensley v. Principi – Docket No. 96-978 (16 Vet. App., 491 (2002))
Hourly rate of $90 was reasonable for work done by supervised non-attorney practitioner.
-- Wilson v. Principi – Docket No. 01-691 (16 Vet. App., 509 (2002))
Appellant was entitled to supplemental fees and expenses under EAJA.
-- Roberson v. Principi – Docket No. 99-352 (16 Vet. App., 544 (2002))
Veteran was not a “prevailing party” for purposes of EAJA award.
-- McManaway v. Principi – Docket No. 97-280 (16 Vet. App., 549 (2003))
Statutory amendment did not negate need for designation of record on appeal.
-- Homan v. Principi – Docket No. 02-1127, 02-1128 (17 Vet. App., 1 (2003))
No award fees under EAJA for unreasonable argument in defense fee agreement.
-- Fritz v. Principi – Docket No. 97-2323 (17 Vet. App., 68 (2003))
EAJA proceeding stayed pending disposition of another case.
-- Cora-Rivera v. Principi – Docket No. 01-374 (17 Vet. App., 97 (2003))
30
Remand did not confer prevailing-party status for purposes of the EAJA.
-- Gordon v. Principi – Docket No. 99-200 (17 Vet. App., 221 (2003))
Appellant was not a “prevailing party” for purposes of the EAJA.
-- Halpern v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1472 (17 Vet. App., 225 (2003))
Corrected EAJA application deemed filed as of date of original application.
-- Modlin v. Principi – Docket No. 02-268 (17 Vet. App., 255 (2003))
Requested rate of $120 per hour for services of non-attorney practitioner was reasonable.
-- Pentecost v. Principi – Docket No. 00-2083 (17 Vet. App., 257 (2003))
Appellant was not a “prevailing party” for EAJA purposes.
-- Rollins v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1731 (17 Vet. App., 294 (2003))
Remand did Not confer prevailing-party status for purposes of the EAJA.
-- White v. Principi – Docket No. 01-125(E) (17 Vet. App., 301 (2003))
Attorney-time hours reduced by 40 hours for lack of specificity in EAJA request.
-- Andrews v. Principi – Docket No. 02-1141 (17 Vet. App., 319 (2003))
Veteran who obtained remand was not a “prevailing party” for EAJA purposes.
-- Sharp v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1925 (17 Vet. App., 431 (2004))
EAJA application can be amended after filing deadline to allege of substantial justification.
-- Scarborough v. Principi – Docket No. 02-1657 (124 S. Ct. 1856 (2004))
Application for attorney fees under the EAJA was timely.
-- Mariano v. Principi – Docket No. 01-467 (18 Vet. App., 217 (2004))
Position of VA was substantially justified, precluding EAJA award.
-- Bonny v. Principi – Docket No. 00-99(E) (18 Vet. App., 218 (2004))
Fee rate of $126.73 per hour for non-attorney practitioner was reasonable and appropriate.
-- Evington v. Principi – Docket No. 03-1008(E) (18 Vet. App., 331 (2004))
Veteran’s attorney was not prevailing party under Equal Access to Justice Act.
-- Halpern v. Principi – Docket No. 04-7010 (384 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
Jurisdiction existed over applicability vel non of VBA to EAJA fees for non-attorney practitioners.
-- Wilson v. Principi – Docket No. 03-7105 ( 391 F.3d 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
ATTORNEYS: Pro Bono attorney suspended indefinitely for neglect of case and failure to respond to orders
of the Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- In re Bohn – Docket No. 97-8006 (11 Vet. App., 249 (1998))
Bar admission rule construed.
31
-- In re Unger – Docket No. 02-8001( 16 Vet. App., 205 (2002))
BACK DISABILITY: Veteran failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of
previously disallowed claim for back disability and psychiatric disability.
-- Nichols v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1271 (6 Vet. App. 317 (1993))
Veteran's testimony, that back problems began in service while lifting firewood was new and material evidence
supporting reopening of finally disallowed claim.
-- Brock v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1450(6 Vet. App. 343 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence to reopen previously disallowed service connection claim
for back injuries.
-- Mayfield v. Brown - Docket No. 90-136(6 Vet. App. 348 (1993))
BACK DISORDER: Claim for secondary service connection for low back disorder was well grounded.
-- Reiber v. Brown - Docket No. 93-955 (7 Vet. App. 513 (1995))
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records noting veteran's "subjective complaint" of lower back
symptoms with in-service onset was not competent medical evidence, as required for his claim to be wellgrounded.
-- LeShore v. Brown - Docket No. 94-766 (8 Vet. App. 406 (1995))
BACK CONDITION: Veteran failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for
back condition.
-- Godfrey v. Brown - Docket No. 398 (7 Vet. App. 398 (1995))
Regional office's (RO) denial of service connection for veteran's back condition was not clear and unmistakable
error, since there was factual basis for RO's decision.
-- Eddy v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1067 (9 Vet. App. 52 (1996))
Veteran's claim for service-connected back condition should have been returned by regional office and
adjudicated by Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA), since award of 10% disability rating with effective date of
March 8, 1991 was less than maximum available benefit.
-- Holland v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1046 (9 Vet. App. 324 (1996))
BACK INJURY: Veteran failed to present new and material evidence to support previously disallowed claim
for service-connection for back injury.
-- Glynn v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1347 (6 Vet. App. 523 (1994))
BENEFITS ELIGIBILITY: Entire period of service member who had been discharged for re-enlistment
would be viewed as one period for purposes of determining benefits eligibility.
-- Holmes v. Brown - Docket No. 95-1073 (10 Vet. App. 38 (1997))
BERIBERI: Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in failing to adjudicate beriberi claim.
-- Suttmann v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1138 (5 Vet. App. 127 (1993))
BILATERAL HEARING LOSS: Evidence supported denial of service-connection for bilateral hearing loss.
-- Hohlt v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-866 (2 Vet. App. 402 (1992))
32
BLINDNESS: Veteran was not entitled to permanent and total disability rating for blindness resulting from
suicide attempt.
-- Zang v. Brown - Docket No. 93-121 (8 Vet. App. 246 (1995))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in denying extraschedular rating for blindness in one eye without first
referring matter for decision by appropriate Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) officials.
--Bagwell v. Brown - Docket No. 95-0238 (9 Vet. App. 157 (1996))
BONE GRAFT SCARS: Findings of BVA granting compensable evaluations of 10% for right and left iliac
crest donor site bone graft scars were not clearly erroneous.
-- E-Farahji v. Brown - Docket No. 92-526 (5 Vet. App. 278 (1993))
BRONCHIAL ASTHMA: Veteran's claim for service connection for bronchial asthma was not well grounded.
-- Layno v. Brown - Docket No. 92-353 (6 Vet. App. 465 (1994))
BURIAL ALLOWANCE: Spouse of deceased veteran who died in private hospital did not meet criteria for
payment of non-service connected burial benefits.
-- Osborne v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1014 (3 Vet. App. 368 (1992))
Veteran's widow was not entitled to non-service connected burial allowance and recoupment of transportation
costs.
-- Melson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1 (1 Vet. App. 334 (1991))
BURIAL BENEFITS: Widow of private who served in New Philippine Scouts was not entitled to burial
benefits.
-- Elarde v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1459 (1 Vet. App. 563 (1991))
Application for burial benefits could not be construed as application for dependency and indemnity
compensation and, thus, widow was not entitled to retroactive benefits.
-- Herzog v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1112 (2 Vet. App. 502 (1992))
Application for dependency and indemnity compensation was not commensurate to application for burial
benefits.
-- Thompson v. Brown - Docket No. 93-124 (6 Vet. App. 436 (1994))
CANCER: BVA had plausible basis for rejecting claim that service connected cancer was cause of veteran's
death.
-- Turner v. Brown - Docket No. 93-517 (6 Vet. App. 256 (1994))
Board of Veterans’ Appeals erred in determining that veteran’s claim for service connection of cancers from
exposure to nonionizing radiation was not well grounded.
-- Rucker v. Brown - Docket No. 94-0927 (10 Vet. App. 67 (1997))
Veteran’s claims for service connection for his colon and skin cancer were not well-grounded.
--Davis v. Brown - Docket No. 95-1169 (10 Vet. App. 209 (1997))
CHEST INJURY: Statement of physician about possibility of link between chest trauma and restrictive lung
disease was too general and inconclusive to made claim well-grounded.
-- Beausoleil v. Brown - Docket No. 94-244 (8 Vet. App. 459 (1996))
33
CLAIMANTS: Woman who sought widow's pension failed to demonstrate her status as claimant. -- Aguilar v.
Derwinski-Docket No. 90-149(2 Vet. App. 21 (1991))
CLAIMS PROCEDURES: Remand of claim denied as not well grounded was required by statutory
amendment. – Luyster v. Gober – Docket No. 99-1271 (14 Vet. App., 187 (2001))
CLASS ACTIONS: Court of Veterans Appeals lacked power to adopt rule of kind proposed for class actions.
-- Harrison v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-545 (1 Vet. App. 438 (1991))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked power to adopt rule of kind proposed for class actions.
-- Lefkowitz v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-634 (1 Vet. App. 439 (1991))
CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE ERROR: Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) to address issue of
clear and unmistakable error in prior BVA decision warranted remand.
-- Mata v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1309 (4 Vet. App. 274 (1993))
Veteran could not simply allege clear and unmistakable error on basis that prior adjudicator had improperly
weighed and evaluated evidence.
-- Mindenhall v. Brown - Docket No. 92-56 (7 Vet. App. 271 (1994))
Court lacked jurisdiction to review final Board of Veterans' Appeals decision for clear and unmistakable error.
-- Talbert v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1275 (7 Vet. App. 352 (1995))
Court lacked jurisdiction to review allegations of clear and unmistakable error in Board of Veterans' Appeals
decisions.
-- Mykles v. Brown - Docket No. 93-187 (7 Vet. App. 372 (1995))
Veteran failed to reasonably raise issue of clear and unmistakable error in Board of Veterans' Appeals decision.
-- Fugo v. Brown - Docket No. 93-407 (6 Vet. App. 162 (1994))
Regulation providing for correcting error in unappealed decisions of agencies of original jurisdiction applied to
correcting error in decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
-- Mata v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1309 (4 Vet. App. 274 (1993))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to adequately consider veteran's claim that previous
regional office decision contained clear and unmistakable error.
-- Whitehead v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1473 (4 Vet. App. 346 (1993))
Changes in state of medical knowledge could not be basis for determination of clear and unmistakable error as
to prior adjudication denying service connection for veteran's death due to congestive heart failure.
-- Porter v. Brown - Docket No. 92-296 (5 Vet. App. 233 (1993))
Veteran failed to show that correct facts were not before regional office when it made decision for purposes of
proving clear and unmistakable error.
-- Luallen v. Brown - Docket No. 94-398 (8 Vet. App. 92 (1995))
34
Veteran's clear and unmistakable error claims related final Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions, not to decision
of agency of original jurisdiction required for CUE review.
-- Morgan v. Brown - Docket No. 96-49 (9 Vet. App. 161 (1996))
Board of Veterans' Appeals' decision was not subject to a claim of clear and unmistakable error.
-- Wright v. Brown - Docket No. 95-570 (9 Vet. App. 300 (1996))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for its rejection of veteran's
clear and unmistakable error claim as to 1952 decision of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to deny rating for
muscle injury as residual of gunshot wound.
-- Beyrle v. Brown - Docket No. 94-688 (9 Vet. App. 377 (1996))
Pre-February 1990 regional office decisions were not subject to clear and unmistakable error collateral attack on
basis of garden-variety erroneous denial of reopening.
-- Crippen v. Brown - Docket No. 95-232 (9 Vet. App. 412 (1996))
Phase “in the record” within meaning of CUE determination construed.
-- Lynch v. Gober – Docket No. 95-1100 (11 Vet. App. 22 (1997))
Subsumed RO decision was not subject to claim of CUE.
-- Morris v. West – Docket No. 96-1013 (12 Vet. App. 542 (1999))
No CUE in decision denying service connection for defective vision.
-- Baldwin v. West – Docket No. 96-1170 (13 Vet. App. 1 (1999))
Subsumed RO decision was subject to clear of CUE.
-- Morris v. West – Docket No. 96-1013 (13 Vet. App. 94 (1999))
Determination of no aggravation was clear and unmistakable error.
-- Sondel v. West – Docket No. 98-719 (13 Vet, App. 213 (1999))
Veteran failed to establish clear and unmistakable error(CUE)
-- Simmons v. West – Docket No. 98-354 (13 Vet. App. 501 (2000))
Court lacked jurisdiction to consider CUE raised initially on appeal.
-- Andre v. West – Docket No. 98-1219 (14 Vet. App., 7 (2000)
Widow had claim for accrued benefits.
-- Teten v. West – Docket No. 98-1244 (Vet. App., 560 (2000))
Term “evidence” in CUE statute means evidence that was of record at time of decision.
-- Pierce v. Principi – Docket No.00-7060 (240 F. 3d 1348 (Fed.Cir. 2001))
Provisions of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) are not applicable to CUE claims.
-- Livesay v. Principi – Docket No. 00-51 (15 Vet. App., 165 (2001))
Appellant did not establish CUE in prior Board decision.
-- Dobbin v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1461 (15 Vet. App., 323 (2001))
35
Regional office did not commit CUE in remanding disability rating.
-- Brown v. Principi – Docket No. 96-114 (15 Vet. App., 421 (2002))
Board committed CUE in failing to address regulation.
-- Sorakubo v. Principi – Docket No.01-0795(16 Vet. App., 120 (2002))
Prior rating decisions were not subject to revision on basis of CUE.
-- Manning v. Principi – Docket No. 98-572 (16 Vet. App., 534 (2002))
Insufficiently pled CUE claims should be dismissed without prejudice, not denied.
-- Simmons v. Principi – Docket No. 98-354 (17 Vet. App., 104 (2003))
Subsequent statutory reinterpretation cannot be basis for CUE.
-- Jordan v. Principi – Docket No. 00-206 (17 Vet. App., 261 (2003))
Board decision finding no CUE in prior RO rating decisions was not arbitrary or capricious.
-- Andrews v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1849 (18 Vet. App., 177 (2004))
Board of Veterans Appeals’ decision finding no CUE lacked adequate statement of reasons.
-- Hines v. Principi – Docket No. 01-2030 (18 Vet. App., 227 (2004))
Board’s Failure to remand CUE claim to regional office was prejudicial error.
-- Huston v. Principi – Docket No. 01-575 ( 18 Vet. App., 395 (2004))
COLON CANCER: Evidence supported BVA's finding that Veteran's colon cancer was not related to inservice radiation exposure.
-- Papa v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1703 (5 Vet. App. 327 (1993))
COMPENSATION: Statute authorizing disability compensation to veterans serving with Philippine forces
during World War II at rate in pesos equal to $.50 for each dollar authorized was not unconstitutionally applied
to veteran after he became U.S. citizen.
-- Florentino v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1025 (7 Vet. App. 369 (1995))
COMPENTENCY: There was plausible basis in record for Board of Veterans Appeals' determination that
veteran was incompetent and incapable of managing his affairs.
-- Sanders v. Brown - Docket No. 95-982 (9 Vet. App. 525 (1996))
Board was not required to apply presumption of competency based on reasonable doubt.
-- Sanders v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1844 (17 Vet. App. 329 (2003))
CONFESSION OF ERROR: Court had jurisdiction to review errors raised by Secretary.
-- Johnson v. Brown - Docket No. 93-89 (7 Vet. App. 95 (1994))
CONTEMPT: Secretary of Veterans Affairs was required to show cause why he should not be held in
contempt for failure to comply with court order.
-- Moore v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-133 (1 Vet. App. 83 (1990))
36
CONVALESCENCE EVALUATION: Denial of extension of temporary total convalescence evaluation was
not abuse of discretion.
-- Foster v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1079 (1 Vet. App. 393 (1991))
COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES: Equal Access to Justice Act does not apply to proceedings in the Court of
Veterans Appeals.
-- Jones v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-58 (2 Vet. App. 231 (1992))
COUNSEL: Claimant's attorney did not make good cause showing necessary to justify his failure to be
admitted to practice before court.
-- Silverman v. Brown - Docket No. 93-178 (7 Vet. App. 487 (1995))
Disqualification of veteran's counsel was not required.
-- Kelly v. Brown - Docket No. 94-829 (9 Vet. App. 37 (1996))
Attorney for claimant made appearance as attorney for Secretary of Veterans Affairs when he participated in
proceedings by signing and filing transmittal of Board of Veterans' Appeals' decision.
-- Violet v. Brown - Docket No. 94-742 (9 Vet. App. 530 (1996))
Attorney's withdrawal as representative of veteran in action for past-due benefits was appropriate after veteran
attempted to discharge him and executed second power of attorney with different representative.
-- Carpenter v. Brown - Docket No. 96-902 (9 Vet. App. 541 (1996))
CUSTODIANS: Fiduciary relationship between claimant and custodian was sufficient to empower custodian
to pursue remedies on behalf of claimant before Court of Veterans Appeals. -- Mokal v. Derwinski Docket No. 89-23 (1 Vet. App. 12 (1990))
DEATH: Finding that veteran's death was not service connected was not clearly erroneous.
-- Van Slack v. Brown - Docket No. 92-580 (5 Vet. App. 499 (1993))
Veterans' survivors were improperly substituted to carry on appeals of deceased veterans.
-- Vda de Landicho v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1150 (7 Vet. App. 42 (1994))
Veteran's claims do not survive his death.
-- Peters v. Brown - Docket No. 91-81 (7 Vet. App. 342 (1995))
DEATH BENEFITS: Income of child's custodians was properly considered as countable income for purposes
of child's entitlement to improved death pension benefits.
-- Kelly v. Brown - Docket No. 91-442 (3 Vet. App. 171 (1992))
Veteran's widow did not make well-grounded claim that his death was service connected.
-- Hanna v. Brown - Docket No. 92-987 (6 Vet. App. 507 (1994))
Neither of two children of whom veteran's widow had legal custody was veteran's "child" for purposes of
improved death pension benefits.
-- Burch v. Brown - Docket No. 93-575 (6 Vet. App. 512 (1994))
Accrued benefits were countable as income for purpose of determining survivor's entitlement to improved death
pension benefits.
37
-- Martin v. Brown - Docket No. 92-141 (6 Vet. App. 272 (1994))
Widow who received death benefits based on veteran's continuous total disability for ten years before his death
failed to demonstrate that she would be entitled to any additional benefits if her husband's death were to be
treated "as if" service connected.
-- Mintz v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1161 (6 Vet. App. 277 (1994))
Board of Veterans Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for denial of service
connection for veteran's death.
-- Romeo v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1948 (5 Vet. App. 388 (1993))
Veteran's daughter who sought reimbursement of expenses incurred for her mother's care and burial had to
submit evidence as to whether she was "child" of veteran according to statute.
-- Caranto v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2069 (4 Vet. App. 516 (1993))
BVA's failure to cite to law of any particular state or to provide any reasons for law chosen in connection with
its finding that death benefits claimant was not veteran's lawful spouse warranted remand.
-- Sanders v. Brown - Docket No. 93-328 (6 Vet. App. 17 (1993))
Savings provision of statutory amendment eliminating dependency and indemnity compensation benefits for
certain remarried spouses did not apply to spouse who could not establish that she commenced divorce
proceedings before effective date of amendment.
--Owings v. Brown - Docket No. 94-449 (8 Vet. App. 17 (1995))
Veteran's younger sister did not establish entitlement as a foster parent of veteran so as to be entitled to burial
expenses and other VA benefits.
-- Mayang v. Brown - Docket No. 94-836 (8 Vet. App. 260 (1995))
Veteran's surviving spouse's dependency and indemnity compensation claim was not well grounded without
evidence that his service-connected asthma caused or contributed to his heart disorder.
-- Johnson v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1227 (8 Vet. App. 423 (1995))
Claimant's marriage to veteran was invalid rendering her ineligible for dependency and indemnity
compensation.
-- Dedicatoria v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1069 (8 Vet. App. 441 (1995))
Veteran's widow did not establish that she had well-grounded claim for death benefits because there was no
service record evidence that her husband had requisite character of service.
-- Linsday v. Brown - Docket No. 94-563 (9 Vet. App. 225 (1996))
Payments under Minimum Income Widow provision of Survivor Benefit Plan to surviving spouse of combat
veteran would be counted as annual income for improved death-pension purposes.
-- Johnson v. Brown - Docket No. 94-80 (9 Vet. App. 369 (1996))
Claimant's share of inheritance from her sister's death was countable income under annual income limitation for
death pension benefits eligibility.
-- Bone v. Brown - Docket No. 95-919 (9 Vet. App. 446 (1996))
38
Veteran’s widow was not entitled to earlier effective date for award of dependency and indemnity compensation
benefits.
-- Moffitt v. Brown - Docket No. 94-764 (10 Vet. App. 214 (1997))
Additional briefing was required on whether Secretary of Veterans Affairs could withhold identity of
informants.
-- Aguinaldo v. Brown - Docket No. 96-252 (10 Vet. App. 243 (1997))
Medical evidence rebutted presumption of service connection required for a claim of dependency and indemnity
compensation.
-- Darby v. Brown - Docket No. 96-1114 (10 Vet. App. 243 (1997))
Children of veteran who died in crash of fighter jet were not entitled to dependency and indemnity
compensation benefits.
-- Venturella v. Gober - Docket No.95-989 (10 Vet. App. 340 (1997))
BVA erred in treating widow’s claim for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) as if it could be
pursued only by means of showing of clear and unmistakable error (CUE).
-- Carpenter v. West – Docket No. 96-95 (11 Vet. App. 140 (1998))
Testimony of doctor did not warrant reopening of claim for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) on
ground of “new and material evidence.”
-- Bostain v. West – Docket No. 97-62 – (11 Vet. App. 124 (1998))
Widow’s claim for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) based on assertion that veteran’s death was
caused by exposure to ionizing radiation while in service was not well grounded.
-- Wandel v. West – Docket No. 94-1110 (11 Vet. App. 200 (1998))
Statute governing dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) and its implementing regulation construed.
-- Wingo v. West – Docket No. 95-1085 (11 Vet. App. 307 (1998))
VA was obliged to adjudicate dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) claim maid in 1978.
-- Blount v. West – Docket No. 97-947 (11 Vet. App. 34 (1998))
Failure of the VA to follow its own regulations in terminating dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC)
benefits constituted prejudicial error.
-- Wilson v. West – Docket No. 96-458 (11 Vet. App. 383 (1998))
Automobile benefit is not a “periodic benefit” that can be claimed by veteran’s survivors as an accrued benefit.
-- Gillis v. West – Docket No. 97-1108 (11 Vet. App. 441 (1998))
Veteran’s widow met her burden of submitting a well-grounded claim to dependency and indemnity
compensation.
-- Pearlman v. West – Docket No. 97-825 (11 Vet. App. 443 (1998))
Finding that veteran’s death was not service connected not clearly erroneous.
 Forshey v. West – Docket No. 96-1038 (12 Vet. App. 71 (1998))

Statute governing eligibility for enhanced DIC compensation construed.
39
-- Hix v. West – Docket No. 97-327 (12 Vet. App. 138 (1999))
Claim for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) was not well-grounded.
-- Bloom V. West – Docket No. 97-1463 (12 Vet. App. 185 (1999))
Widow submitted a well-grounded claim for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC).
-- Mattern v. West – Docket No. 96-1508 (12 Vet. App. 222 (1999))
Dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) claim remanded for readjudication.
-- Weaver v. West – Docket No. 96-667 (12 Vet. App. 229 (1999))
Widow of former “New” Philippine Scout was not entitled to a death pension.
-- Manlincon v. West – Docket No. 97-1467 (12 Vet. App. 238 (1999))
Determination of effective date for DIC award was not clearly erroneous.
-- Schoolman v. West – Docket No. 97-1494 ( 12 vet. App. 307 (1999))
Claim for DIC benefits for helpless child was not well-grounded.
-- Cumby v. West – Docket No. 97-463 (12 Vet. App. 363 (1999))
Statute concerning reinstatement of surviving spouse DIC benefits construed.
-- Cacatian v. West – Docket No. 97-1730
Telephone call was not an informal claim for death benefits.
-- Westberry v. West – Docket No. 96-1442 (12 Vet. App. 510 (1999))
Effective date finding was not arbitrary.
-- Mitscher v. West – Docket No. 98-502 (13 Vet. App. 123 (1999))
Widow’s DIC claim was not well-grounded.
-- Hasty v. West – Docket No. 98-1511 (13 Vet. App. 230 (1999))
Statute requiring offset of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits construed.
-- Bryan v. West – Docket No. 97-2216 (13 Vet. App. 482 (2000))
DIC claim remanded for consideration of medical treatise evidence.
-- Timberlake v. Gober – Docket No. 96-1637 (14 Vet. App. , 122 (2000))
Widow’s claim for DIC compensation remanded.
-- Sachs v. Gober – Docket No.98-1632 (14 Vet. App., 175 (2001))
Widow was not entitled to recover expenses of transporting body.
-- Turner v. Gober – Docket No. 98-1863 (14 Vet. App., 224 (2001))
DIC claim remanded in light of enactment of the VCAA.
-- Sachs v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1632 (14 Vet. App., 298 (2001))
Window was not entitled to surviving spouse benefits on ground of Dela Cruz v. Pricipi.
40
-- Dela Cruz v. Principi – Docket No. 99-158 (15 Vet. App., 143 (2001))
Request for waiver of death benefits overpayment was untimely.
-- McCullough v. Principi – Docket No. 00-231 (Vet. App., 272 (2001))
Adult son of deceased veteran was not eligible for accrued benefits or DIC.
-- Burris v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1770 (Vet. App., 348 (2001))
Amount received as death pension benefits was properly subtracted from retroactive DIC award.
-- Gantt v. Principi – Docket No.99-2234 (16 Vet. App., 89 (2002))
Statute governing survivor benefits construed.
-- Bonny v. Principi – Docket No. 00-39 (16 Vet. App., 504 (2002))
Brother of deceased veteran was not entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC).
-- Valiao v. Principi – Docket No. 02-754 (17 Vet. App., 229 (2003))
VA Counsel Precedent Opinion concerning enhanced DIC declared invalid.
-- Hatch v. Principi – Docket No. 03-1282 (18 Vet. App. 527 (2004))
DEATH COMPENSATION: There was no new and material evidence which warranted reopening of
previously disallowed claim for service connected death compensation.
-- Bellavance v. Principi - Docket No. 91-980 (3 Vet. App. 402 (1992))
DEATH PENSION: Board was required to consider all evidence on woman's claim for death pension benefits
as surviving spouse of deceased veteran through common law marriage.
-- Scott v. Principi - Docket No. 91-463 (3 Vet. App. 352 (1992))
for dependency and indemnity compensation constituted claim for both dependency and indemnity benefits and
death pension.
-- Isenhart v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1184 (3 Vet. App. 177 (1992))
Accrued benefits were not countable as income for purpose of determining entitlement to improved death
pension benefits.
-- Martin v. Brown - Docket No. 92-141 (7 Vet. App. 196 (1994))
DEFAULT JUDGMENT: Veteran was not entitled to default judgment on appeal on ground that
Secretary of Veterans Affairs failed to timely provide him with documents.
-- Kates v. Derwinski - Docket No. 92-348 (3 Vet. App. 93 (1992))
DENTAL TREATMENT: Where service secretary failed to comply with requirement that veteran be notified
of application time limits for VA outpatient dental treatment, application time limits did not begin to run.
-- Mays v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1038 (5 Vet. App. 302 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide reasons or bases for its assertion that veteran had received
complete episode of treatment, which would preclude his right to additional treatment.
-- Grovhoug v. Brown - Docket No. 93-547 (7 Vet. App. 209 (1994))
Veteran failed to submit well-grounded claim for outpatient dental treatment.
41
-- Woodson v. Brown - Docket No. 94-852 (8 Vet. App. 352 (1995))
DENTAL WORK: Evidence supported denial of claim for service connection for disability of
temporomandibular joint including arthritis.
-- Owens v. Brown - Docket No. 92-218 (7 Vet. App. 429 (1995))
DEPENDENCY ALLOWANCE: Veterans Affairs mailing letter to veteran notifying him of eligibility for
dependency allowance created presumption that Secretary satisfied duty to inform veteran of change in law.
-- Gold v. Brown - Docket No. 93-899 (7 Vet. App. 315 (1994))
DEPENDENCY BENEFITS: Board of Veterans' Appeals did not provide adequate reasons or bases for
denial of widow's claim for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits.
-- Sussex v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1118 (1 Vet. App. 526 (1991))
Decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals denying benefits to widow of veteran who died while hospitalized at
VA-administered hospital was not clearly erroneous.
-- Cariaga v. Brown - Docket No. 91-71 (5 Vet. App. 397 (1993))
Widow was entitled to retroactive dependency and indemnity compensation benefits.
-- Satchel v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-420 (1 Vet. App. 258 (1991))
Veteran's widow was not entitled to earlier effective date for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits.
-- Lyman v. Brown - Docket No. 92-9 (5 Vet. App. 194 (1993))
DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION: Board failed to provide adequate statements of
reasons or bases for its finding that widow was not entitled to DIC benefits.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-926 (2 Vet. App. 241 (1992))
Widow's claim for dependency and indemnity compensation was well-grounded.
-- Lathan v. Brown - Docket No. 93-62 (7 Vet. App. 359 (1995))
Board of Veterans' Appeals should have adjudicated claim for DIC benefits arising by operation of statute
permitting service connection for death resulting from hospitalization.
-- Stoner v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1307 (5 Vet. App. 488 (1993))
Finding that claimant was not a "child" of veteran was not clearly erroneous.
-- Campbell v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1373 (5 Vet. App. 77 (1993))
Remand was required on claim filed by adult daughter of deceased veteran for dependency and indemnity
compensation benefits.
-- Dobson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1136 (4 Vet. App. 443 (1993))
Remand was necessary for Board of Veterans' Appeals to consider whether dependency and indemnity benefits
claim was barred under provision excluding remarried surviving spouse from benefits unless remarriage was
annulled or declared void.
-- Fournier v. Brown - Docket No. 92-408 (4 Vet. App. 550 (1993))
42
Claimant was not a surviving spouse entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation.
-- Koch v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1252 (4 Vet. App. 568 (1993))
Veteran's widow was not entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation.
-- Monts v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1412 (4 Vet. App. 379 (1993))
Widow was not entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation benefits.
-- Bustin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1252 (2 Vet. App. 456 (1992))
Remand was required on widow's dependency and indemnity compensation claim.
-- Philbrick v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-958 (2 Vet. App. 466 (1992))
Widow failed to submit new and material evidence sufficient to warrant reopening of claim for dependency and
indemnity compensation.
-- Espiritu v. Derwinski-Docket No. 492 (2 Vet. App. 492 (1992))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs was required to file brief on issue of whether regulation was in conflict with
statute by not requiring that spousal separation be caused by veteran's misconduct for purposes of eligibility for
dependency and indemnity compensation as surviving spouse.
-- Gregory v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-912 (2 Vet. App. 295 (1992))
Portion of settlement with veteran's widow recovered under the Federal Tort Claims Act in her capacity as
individual beneficiary was to be offset against her dependency and indemnity compensation payments.
-- Neal v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-485 (2 Vet. App. 296 (1992))
Widow was not entitled to earlier effective date of award of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation despite
fact that Secretary of Veterans Affairs erroneously failed to award increase some 20 years before.
-- Wells v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1449 (3 Vet. App. 307 (1992))
Remand was required to widow's claim for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits.
-- Garcia v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1129 (3 Vet. App. 382 (1992))
Former wife was not entitled to benefits.
-- Harden v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-402 (3 Vet. App. 39 (1992))
Widow was not entitled to special monthly dependency and indemnity compensation benefits.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-926 (1 Vet. App. 479 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for denial of claim for
dependency and indemnity compensation benefits.
-- Curl v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1125 (3 Vet. App. 98 (1992))
Remand was required on widow's claim for dependency and compensation benefits.
-- Galvagno v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1474 (3 Vet. App. 118 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in failing to discuss why service-connected hypertension and heart disease did
not contribute to veteran's death.
-- Schoonover v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1328 (3 Vet. App. 166 (1992))
43
Veteran's loss of use of leg was not functional equivalent to amputation for purpose of establishing service
connection of death from coronary heart disease.
-- Hrvatin v. Principi - Docket No. 91-217 (3 Vet. App. 426 (1992))
Board of Veterans Appeals should have adjudicated claim for DIC benefits arising by operation of statute
permitting service connection for death resulting from hospitalization.
-- Stoner v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1307 (5 Vet. App. 488 (1993))
Decreased veteran's spouse's application for burial benefits was not application for dependency and indemnity
compensation or for accrued benefits.
-- Shields v. Brown - Docket No. 94-539 (8 Vet. App. 346 (1995))
Widow presented well grounded claim for dependency and indemnity compensation.
-- Cacalda v. Brown - Docket No. 94-360 (9 Vet. App. 261 (1996))
Rating decision which found veteran 100% disabled did not supersede prior rating decision which had found
veteran less than 100% disabled.
-- Allin v. Brown - Docket No. 95-005 (10 Vet. App. 55 (1997))
DEPENDENCY COMPENSATION: Widow was not entitled to earlier effective date for award of
dependency and indemnity compensation.
-- McTighe v. Brown - Docket No. 93-892 (7 Vet. App. 29 (1994))
Widow failed to establish by a preponderance of evidence her threshold status as benefits-eligible claimant.
-- Villeza v. Brown - Docket No. 93-498 (9 Vet, App. 353 (1996))
DEPENDENT BENEFITS: Widow of veteran lacked standing to pursue claim for retroactive dependent
benefits.
-- Sharp v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1925 (17 Vet. App., 431 (2004))
DEPENDENT CHILDREN: Statute barring dependent child from reinstatement of DIC benefits terminated
by virtue of marriage because marriage was dissolved by divorce, not by annulment, was constitutional.
-- Giancaterino v. Brown - Docket No. 93-830 (7 Vet. App. 555 (1995))
DIAGNOSTIC CODE: BVA's failure to adequately explain choice of diagnostic codes used in evaluating
veteran's calluses was harmless error.
-- Tedeschi v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1232 (7 Vet. App. 411 (1995))
DISABILITY: Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) finding that veteran sustained material improvement under
ordinary conditions for life warranting reduction of disability rating was clearly erroneous.
-- Hohol v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1002 (2 Vet. App. 169 (1992))
There was no plausible basis in record for Board of Veterans' Appeals' decision to deny total disability rating
based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
-- Vettese v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1297 (7 Vet. App. 31 (1994))
BVA finding veteran's disability had not increased in severity in year prior to claim which resulted in 100%
disability rating was supported by plausible basis in record.
-- Scott v. Brown - Docket No. 93-288 (7 Vet. App. 184 (1994)
44
There was no clear and unmistakable error in unappealed rating decision denying total disability rating based on
individual unemployability.
-- Damrel v. Brown - Docket No. 93-171 (6 Vet. App. 242 (1994))
Remand was appropriate to determine whether veteran's post traumatic stress disorder condition alone was
sufficient to render her unemployable.
-- Richard v. Brown - Docket No. 94-889 (9 Vet. App. 266 (1996))
Veteran’s death extinguished his disability claim so that substitution of personal representative was moot.
-- Richard v. Gober - Docket No. 97-1005 (10 Vet App. 431 (1997))
Remand necessary for application of new amendments to portion of rating schedule pertaining to mental
disorders.
-- Baker v. West – Docket No. 96-1456 (11 Vet. App. 163 (1998))
BVA did not adequately explain why veteran’s posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) did not merit 70%
disability rating.
-- Mittleider v. West – Docket No. 96-1671 (11 Vet. App. 181 (1998))
DISABILITY BENEFITS: Increase in apportionment of veteran’s disability benefits for minor children not
warranted.
-- Costa v. West – Docket No. 96-1161 (11 Vet. App. 102 (1998))
Veteran’s death abated his disability compensation claim.
-- Johnson v. West – Docket No. 96-587 (11 Vet. App. 225 (1998))
VA did not violate its statutory duty to notify in failing to inform veteran that an x-ray examination was
necessary to complete his medical examination.
-- Brewer v. West – Docket No. 95-1280 (11 Vet. App. 228 (1998))
Veteran’s medical examination was inadequate because regional office (RO) failed to comply with directions in
prior BVA remand.
-- Stegall v. West – Docket No. 97-78 (11 Vet. App. 269 (1998))
Whether a claimant’s spouse is one of his “most intimate” contacts pursuant to PTSD regulation is not a matter
of law, but a factual determination.
-- Kingston v. West – Docket No. 96-1556 (11 Vet. App. 272 (1998))
Amount received pursuant to settlement of tort claim constituted “countable annual income” for Improved
Disability Pension (IDP) purposes.
-- Springer v. West – Docket No. 96-685 (11 Vet. App. 38 (1998))
When veteran died, his claim did not survive him, and thus daughter’s appeal had to be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction.
-- Marlow v. West – Docket No. 96-006 (11 Vet. App. 53 (1998))
45
Evidence supported award of temporary total disability rating for convalescence (TDCC) for periods after
operating on veteran’s finger.
-- Felden v. West – Docket No. 97-52 (11 Vet. App. 427 (1998))
Decision denying eligibility for disability pension not ripe for review.
-- Keen v. West – Docket No. 96-299 (12 Vet. App. 176 (1999))
Claim for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not well grounded.
-- Winters v. West – Docket No. 97-2180 (12 Vet. App. 203 (1999))
New-and-material-evidence determinations are reviewable under deferential “clearly erroneous” standard.
-- Elkins v. Wess – Docket No. 97-1534 (12 Vet. App. 209 (1999))
Psychological evaluation report was not “new evidence” for purpose of claim reopening.
-- Smith v. West – Docket No. 95-638 (12 Vet. App. 312 (1999))
Remand of claim for non-service-connected pension was required.
-- Vargas-Gonzalez v. West – Docket No. 96-536 (12 Vet. App. 321 (1999))
Claim for retroactive benefits did not survive veteran’s death.
-- Marlow v. West – Docket No. 98-113 (12 Vet. App. 548 (1999))
Provision of combat veteran statute construed.
-- Kessel v. West – Docket No. 98-772 (13 Vet. App. 9 (1999))
Claim was not well-grounded.
-- Jimison v. West – Docket No. 98-551 (13 Vet. App. 75 (1999))
Veteran was not entitled to special monthly compensation(SMC).
-- Prejean v. West – Docket No. 99-156 (13 Vet. App. 444 (2000))
Adjudication of issue whether presumption of soundness was rebutted was premature.
-- Adams v. West – Docket No. 99-575 (13 Vet. App. 453 (2000))
Former wife was not eligible for apportionment of disability pension benefits.
-- Marrero v. Gober – Docket No. 99-624 (14 Vet. App. 80 (2000))
Interest was not available on past-due disability benefits, despite 30-year delay.
-- Smith v. Gober – Docket No. 98-255 (14 Vet. App., 96 (2000))
Equitable tolling of one-year SDVI filing period was not warranted.
-- Harvey v. Gober – Docket No. 98-1375 (14 Vet. App., 137(2000))
Veteran was not entitled to interest on past-due benefits.
-- Smith v. Gober – Docket No. 98-255 (14 Vet. App., 227 (2001))
Statute authorizing disability compensation for rehabilitation injury construed
46
-- Cottle v. Principi – Docket No. 98-854
Finding that veteran was not entitled to TDIU rating was clearly erroneous.
-- Bowling v. Principi – Docket No. 99-2264 (15 Vet. App., 1 (2001))
VA regulations limiting eligibility for special adaptive housing is invalid.
-- Kilpatrick v. Principi – Docket No. 98-2247 (16 Vet. App., 1 (2002))
Disqualification statute and regulation construed.
-- Lane v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1769 (16 Vet. App., 78 (2002))
Board’s determination concerning spina bifida was not supported by adequate reasons.
Statute governing recoupment of amounts from disability compensation construed.
-- Majeed v. Principi – Docket No. 00-2015 (16 Vet. App., 421 (2002))
Payment of COLA in lieu of interest not authorized by statute.
-- Sandstorm v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1440 (16 Vet. App., 481 (2002))
Veterans did not receive adequate notice of right of election.
-- Svehla v. Principi – Docket No. 00-0418 (17 Vet. App., 160 (2003))
Board’s conclusion that tinnitus was not “persistent” was arbitrary and capricious.
-- Smith v. Principi – Docket No. 01-623 (17 Vet. App., 168 (2003))
Veterans Court correctly applied clearly erroneous standard of review to BVA denial of compensation.
-- Lennox v. Principi – Docket No. 03-7034 (353 F.3d 941 (Fed. Cir. 2003))
Error in finding that no presumption of service connection existed was harmless.
-- Sheeden v. Principi – Docket No. 04-7001 (381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
Denial of basic eligibility for disability benefits lacked adequate statement of reasons.
-- Frasure v. Principi – Docket No. 02-1108 (18 Vet. App., 379 (2004))
Remand to DVA was required to resolve conflicting interpretation of two disability benefits statutes.
-- National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Docket No. 007095, 00-7096 and 00-7098 (Cite as 260 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2001))
VA regulation was valid.
-- National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Docket No. 027346 (Cite as 330 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003))
Order setting effective date of veteran’s award of service connection for PTSD was not reviewable.
-- Williams v. Principi – Docket No.04-7042 (114 Fed Appx. 386 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
Veteran was not entitled to special monthly compensation (SMC) at a higher rate.
-- Augustine v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1160 (18 Vet. App. 505 (2004))
47
DISABILITY AND INDEMNITY: Remand of widow's claim for disability and indemnity compensation was
required, since the Board failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting opinions of doctors with expertise in
POW internal medicine.
-- Philbrick v. Brown - Docket No. 91-958 (5 Vet. App. 316 (1993))
DISABILITY PENSION: Claim for reinstatement was a new claim subject to statutory amendment which
eliminated presumption of permanent and total disability for those 65 and over.
-- Hermogenes v. Brown - Docket No. 94-212 (9 Vet. App. 75 (1996))
DISABILITY RATING: Claim for increase in disability benefits is new claim and thus all evidence of record
must be considered to establish which disability rating veteran is entitled.
-- Lenderman v. Principi - Docket No. 91-904 (3 Vet. App. 491 (1992))
Remand was required to obtain additional evidence with respect to veteran's entitlement to increased rating for
schizo-affective disorder.
-- Crawford v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1794 ( 5 Vet. App. 33 (1993))
Board Veterans' Appeals could not ignore or reject veteran's claim for total disability rating based on individual
unemployability merely because veteran did not expressly raise appropriate legal provision.
-- McGrath v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1374 (5 Vet. App. 57 (1993))
There was no clear an unmistakable error in regional office decision awarding 20% disability rating for
residuals of gunshot wound to low back.
-- Robertson v. Brown - Docket No. 92-374 (5 Vet. App. 70 (1993))
Veteran was entitled to increased disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Barnhill v. Brown - Docket No. 91-778 (5 Vet. App. 75 (1993))
Determination of Board of Veterans' Appeals that veteran diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia was
employable was not supported by evidence.
-- Dilles v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1820 (5 Vet. App. 88 (1993))
Evidence supported Board's determination that veteran did not incur any additional disability stemming from
original nasal surgery.
-- Reichner v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1393 (4 Vet. App. 418 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for denial of increased rating for leftsciatic-nerve injury and left-hip arthritis.
-- Anderson v. Brown - Docket No. 90-798 (5 Vet. App. 347 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals' statement of reasons and bases for denial of total disability rating based on
individual unemployability was inadequate.
-- VanMeter v. Brown - Docket No. 91-928 (4 Vet. App. 477 (1993))
Remand was necessary in light of failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to adjudicate claim that regional office
had clearly and unmistakably erred in applying superseded criteria to reduce disability rating.
-- Johnson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1619 (4 Vet. App. 508 (1993))
Remand was required to enable Board to provide reasons or bases for denying increased rating for 100% for
veteran's manic depressive psychosis.
48
-- Hood v. Brown - Docket No. 91-714 (4 Vet. App. 301 (1993))
Veteran's 50% disability rating, which had been in place for more than 20 years, was a rating for compensation
purposes and thus was protected from reduction, even though he never elected to receive disability pay in lieu
of military retirement pay.
-- Salgado v. Brown - Docket No. 91-826 (4 Vet. App. 316 (1993))
There was no plausible basis in record for factual determinations of Board of Veterans' Appeals which denied
an increased evaluation for anxiety reaction with depression, currently rated as 30% disabling.
-- Magusin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-612 (2 Vet. App. 547 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in failing to analyze evidence in light of regulation that required it to regard as
"seriously disabled" any part of musculoskeltal system that becomes painful on use.
-- Clouatre v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-1614 (2 Vet. App. 590 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals relied upon its own medical judgment in implicitly rejecting opinions of two health
professions concerning veteran's employability.
-- Chestnut v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-728 (2 Vet. App. 613 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its denial of total disability rating
based on individual unemployability.
-- Simon v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1056 (2 Vet. App. 621 (1992)
Board of Veterans' Appeals applied standard that exceeded that found in relevant regulation to support its
conclusion that veteran's acne condition did not warrant increased evaluation.
-- Pernorio v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-779 (2 Vet. App. 625 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to increased rating for service connected residuals of multiple shell fragment wounds
to abdomen.
-- Shy v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1208 (2 Vet. App. 647 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in denying claim for upper respiratory disability.
-- Bartow v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-598 (2 Vet. App. 657 (1992))
Veteran was entitled to 70% disability rating for service-connected anxiety reaction according to revised
Schedule of Rating Disabilities.
-- CD v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-438 (2 Vet. App. 667 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to articulate reasons for determining that Veteran
was entitled to only 50% disability for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Ewing v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-305 (2 Vet. App. 459 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to consider and correctly apply relevant law and regulations in denying
increased rating for residuals of left pneumothorax with musculoskeletal chest wall pain.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1507 (2 Vet. App. 46 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to increased rating for service-connected right knee disability.
-- Boykin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-650(2 Vet. App. 479 (1992))
49
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans Appeals to completely analyze veteran's request for
entitlement to increased rating for cervical spine fracture residuals.
-- Amador v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-940(2 Vet. App. 499 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statements of reasons or bases for denial of rating in
excess of 10% for service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Stein v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-796 (2 Vet. App. 517 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals improperly filed to analyze veteran's request for increased disability rating in light
of evidence of veteran's history of pain.
-- Dunn v. Principi - Docket No. 91-541 (3 Vet. App. 499 (1992))
Ten percent rating was warranted for service-connected injury to right middle finger.
-- Hill v. Principi - Docket No. 91-58 (3 Vet. App. 540 (1992))
Remand was warranted for taking additional medical evidence to decide claim for increased rating for coronary
artery disease.
-- Del Rosario v. Principi - Docket No. 91-478 (3 Vet. App. 555 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to increased disability rating for facial asymmetry.
-- Ashmore v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-804 (1 Vet. App. 580 (1991))
Factual finding by Board of Veterans' Appeals that service connected bipolar disorder produced no more than
definite impairment was not plausible based upon medical evidence of record and therefore was clearly
erroneous.
-- Tucker v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-672(2 Vet. App. 201 (1992))
Medical evidence failed to reveal any severe symptoms bronchiectasis which would have warranted 60%
disability rating rather than current 30% rating.
-- Collins v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1312 (2 Vet. App. 215 (1992))
Evidence supported denial of increased evaluation for service-connected schizophrenia.
-- Collier v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-839 (1 Vet. App. 413 (1991))
Board of Veteran's Appeals erred in reducing veteran's rating based on evidence from one examination.
-- Maragni v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-487 (2 Vet. App. 266 (1992))
Finding by Board of Veterans' Appeals that veteran's deficit in leg strength was due to lumbar radiculopathy and
residuals of back surgery rather than shell fragment wound scar was clearly erroneous.
-- Belin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-625 (2 Vet. App. 271 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in reducing rating for service-connected differentiated schizophrenia from
100% to 10%.
-- Dofflemyer v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1078 (2 Vet. App. 277 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals was required to reconsider veteran's disability ratings claim based upon current
regulations.
-- Moyer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1324 (2 Vet. App. 289 (1992))
50
Veteran was entitled to restoration of his 100% disability rating for schizophrenia retroactive to effective date of
its reduction.
-- Johns v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1583 (2 Vet. App. 346 (1992))
Conclusion by Board of Veterans' Appeals that veteran was entitled only to 70% scheduler disability rating for
schizophrenia contained legal error.
-- Murincsak v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-222 (2 Vet. App. 363 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals was clearly erroneous in finding that veteran was not entitled to total disability
rating.
-- Gleicher v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-147 (2 Vet. App. 26 (1991))
Effective date was that of reopened claim rather than previous date that would have been permissible in event of
successful collateral attack on previously disallowed claim.
-- Henry v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1200 (2 Vet. App. 88 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals finding that veteran was not totally disabled due to severe hypertensive
cardiovascular disease was clearly erroneous.
-- Hersey v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-700 (2 Vet. App. 91 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in failing to recognize that evidence was in favor of claim for increased rating
for post-traumatic stress disorder and total rating based on individual unemployability.
-- Crandell v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1046 (3 Vet. App. 33 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to consider relevant law in denying veteran
entitlement to increased rating of residuals of fusion of lumbosacral spine.
-- Lewis v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-351 (3 Vet. App. 259 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in characterizing issue before it as question of whether veteran was entitled to
increased rating rather than whether reduction in his rating was proper.
-- Jeanes v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-3 (3 Vet. App. 264 (1992))
Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to explain implicit rejection of affidavit of veteran's wife warranted
remand of claim for increased scheduler rating for frozen feet.
-- Hogue v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1271 (3 Vet. App. 280 (1992))
Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals was required to explain why particular diagnostic code was applied to
veteran's rating claim for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
-- Merson v. Principi - Docket No. 90-975 (3 Vet. App. 305 (1992))
Remand was required on veteran's claim for increased disability rating for gastrectomy.
-- Keen v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1510 (3 Vet. App. 332 (1992))
Failure to provide adequate reasons or bases for choice of diagnostic code of veteran's unlisted balance disorder
warranted remand.
-- Lendenmann v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1235 (3 Vet. App. 345 (1992)
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in denying increased rating for third-degree burn scars.
51
-- Gooden v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-912 (3 Vet. App. 10 (19991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to correctly apply regulation in denying increased rating for paranoid
schizophrenia.
-- James v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1096 (3 Vet. App. 41 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to protected rating for 70% disabled based on paranoid schizophrenia.
-- Hand v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-290 (3 Vet. App. 68 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to give adequate statement of reasons or bases for denial increased disability
rating for chronic lumbosacral strain with left leg radiculopathy.
-- Brown v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-505(2 Vet. App. 444 (1992))
There was plausible basis for denial of entitlement to increased ratings for residuals of shell fragment wound to
fact and left ankle.
-- Catalig v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-734 (3 Vet. App. 116 (1992))
Veterans testimony regarding muscle spasms was evidence which had to be considered in determining disability
rating.
-- Clouatre v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1614 (3 Vet. App. 127 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to reconsider disability rating.
-- Jones v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1611 (3 Vet. App. 396 (1992))
Veteran was entitled to 10% disability rating for lumbosacral strain as of date of service connection. -- Banks v.
Principi - Docket No. 90-1545 (3 Vet. App. 418 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to reinstatement of 100% rating for mesothelioma.
-- Rossiello v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1145 (3 Vet. App. 430 (1992))
Residuals of veteran's gunshot wound to right thigh, fractured femur, did not result in more than moderate
disability.
-- Archer v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1534 (3 Vet. App. 433 (1992))
Combined service-connected rating for 40% for two service-connected disabilities individually rated at 30%
and 20% was properly calculated.
-- Tumaning v. Brown - Docket No. 92-193 (4 Vet. App. 160 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons for denial of increased rating for cervical spine
condition.
-- Minshall v. Brown - Docket No. 91-580 (4 Vet. App. 195 (1993))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to consider diagnostic code in evaluating veteran's
arthralgia.
-- Peterson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2207 (4 Vet. App. 252 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate bases or reasons for denying veteran permanent and total
disability rating for pension purposes.
52
-- Abbott v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1259 (5 Vet. App. 197 (1993))
Finding that veteran was not entitled to 100% rating for coronary artery disease was clearly erroneous.
-- Carroll v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1406 (5 Vet. App. 208 (1993))
Board of Veterans’ Appeals erred by not considering referral of veteran’s claim for increased disability rating to
appropriate VA official for extraschedular rating.
-- Smallwood v. Brown - Docket No. 94-609 (10 Vet. App. 93 (1997))
Board’s determination concerning spina bifida was not supported by adequate reasons.
-- Jones v. Principi – Docket No. 00-669 (16 Vet. App., 219 (2000))
DISABILITY REGULATIONS: Regional office's failure to take into account regulations dealing with total
disability rating required remand.
-- Heerdt v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1398 (2 Vet. App. 260 (1992))
DISABLING PAIN: BVA's failure to consider and discuss clearly two medical reports allegedly supporting
veteran's claims of severely disabling pain warranted remand.
-- Hatlestad v. Brown - Docket No. 90-103 (5 Vet. App. 524 (1993))
DISCHARGE: Discharge under other than honorable conditions as result of spending 32 days of 170-day
service period of AWOL status precluded entitlement to VA benefits.
-- Winter v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1521 (4 Vet. App. 29 (1993))
Even if veteran's discharge was properly based on willful and persistent misconduct, it would be excused if it
was committed while veteran was insane.
-- Stringham v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1902 (3 Vet. App. 560 (1992))
DISMISSAL: Initial appeal was to be dismissed.
-- Breslow v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-89 (1 Vet. App. 359 (1991))
Joint motion for approval of settlement of veteran's claims for attorney fees warranted voluntary dismissal of
action.
-- Dofflemyer v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1078 (4 Vet. App. 339 (1993))
DISQUALIFICATION: Judge’s prior government service did not disqualify him in case involving
government.
-- Morris v. Brown - Docket No. 97-141 (10 Vet. App. 286 (1997))
DIVORCE: Religious marriage ceremony does not survive civil divorce for purposes of entitlement to benefits
under laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
-- Frankel v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-167 (1 Vet. App. 23 (1990))
DUE PROCESS: Board of Veterans' Appeals must provide veteran with reasonable notice of evidence and
opportunity to respond.
-- Thurber v. Brown - Docket No. 92-172 (5 Vet. App. 119 (1993))
53
Without determination that veteran did not have right to predetermination notice, it would be premature for
court to address possible constitutional violation of due process.
-- Grovhoug v. Brown - Docket No. 93-547 (7 Vet. App. 106 (1994))
DUTY TO ASSIST: Department of Veterans Affairs breached its duty to assist veteran in developing back
injury claim.
-- Graves v. Brown - Docket No. 92-483 (6 Vet. App. 166 (1994))
Remand was appropriate remedy for Board of Veterans' Appeals failure to assist veteran in developing claim for
service connection for low back condition by obtaining orthopedic examination.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 93-478 (7 Vet. App. 255 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals had duty to assist veteran in obtaining treatment records that could be supportive of
his claim.
-- Massey v. Brown - Docket No. 93-135 (7 Vet. App. 204 (1994))
VA did not breach duty to assist claimant in obtaining government records without any demonstration of their
relevance.
-- Counts v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1288 (6 Vet. App. 473 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals did not comply with its duty to assist veteran by relying on VA examination
performed during inactive stage of his condition.
-- Ardison v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1268 (6 Vet. App. 405 (1994))
Absent current examination as to whether veteran suffered from current disability of lumbar spine related to
condition manifested in service, remand was necessary for examination.
-- Betties v. Brown - Docket No. 92-319 (6 Vet. App. 333 (1993))
VA's breach of duty to assist veteran cannot form basis for claim of clear and unmistakable error.
Caffrey v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1511 (6 Vet. App. 377 (1994))
--
Board failed to satisfy its duty to assist by not performing contemporaneous medical examination of veteran's
wrist injury based on evidence that it was secondary to service-connected hand injury.
-- Schroeder v. Brown - Docket No. 92-473 (6 Vet 220 (1994))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs did not breach duty to assist veteran in developing facts pertinent to claim where
veteran refused medical examination.
-- Olson v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1321 (3 Vet. App. 480 (1992))
Absence of medical opinion by the Department of Veterans' Affairs whether claimant's right knee condition was
secondarily related to his service-connected left knee disability indicated that duty to assist claimant in
developing his claim was neglected.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 91-771 (5 Vet. App. 335 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals had duty to assist veteran with claim for ichthyosis vulgaris.
-- Lineberger v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2043 (5 Vet. App. 367 (1993))
Duty to assist included providing veteran with new examination.
-- Weggenmann v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1249 (Vet. App. 281 (1993))
54
Veteran submitted well-grounded claim for residuals of frozen feet triggering duty to assist.
-- Howard v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1793 (5 Vet. App. 113 (1993))
VA breached duty to assist veteran with respect to his well grounded claim for earlier effective date for service
connection for post-traumatic stress disorder and residuals of frost bite.
-- Dunson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-800 (4 Vet. App. 327 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals did not fulfill duty to assist veteran in developing claim for service connection for
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
-- Ascherl v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1682 (4 Vet. App. 371 (1993))
VA breached duty to assist veteran's widow in gathering information to make adequate determination of claim
for service connection for veteran's death due to Stelazine.
-- Blackburn v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1098 (4 Vet. App. 395 (1993))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs violated duty to assist claimant in developing facts pertinent to claim.
-- Jolley v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-161 (1 Vet. App. 37 (1990))
Department of Veterans Affairs breached its statutory duty to assist veteran in developing his claim for total
disability pension benefits.
-- Littke v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-68 (1 Vet. App. 90 (1990))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs failed in his duty to assist veteran in developing facts pertinent to claim and to
distribute full information regarding all benefits to which veteran may be entitled. Akles v. Derwinski
-- Docket No. 90-390 (1 Vet. App. 118 (1991))
Department of Veterans Affairs failed in its duty to assist veteran in developing facts pertinent to claim by
failing to attempt to obtain records of private physician.
-- Collamore v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-898 (2 Vet. App. 541 (1992))
Bringing existence of medical records to VA's attention in some manner triggers VA's duty to assist claimant.
-- Gross v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1021 (2 Vet. App. 551 (1992))
Department of Veterans Affairs had no duty to assist applicant in producing evidence establishing his status as a
claimant eligible for dependency and indemnity compensation or death pension by surviving child.
-- O'Neal v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-181 (2 Vet. App. 565 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to fulfill its statutory duty to assist claimant.
-- Hill v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-868 (2 Vet. App. 570 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals breached statutory duty to assist veteran in development of his claim.
-- Dalton v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-137 (2 Vet. App. 634 (1992))
Department of Veterans Affairs violated duty to assist veteran.
-- Azurin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1076 (2 Vet. App. 489 (1992))
55
VA breached duty to assist by failing to obtain veteran's Social Security Administration disability record despite
notice of records in veteran's application.
-- Lind v. Principi - Docket No. 91-550 (3 Vet. App. 493 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals had no duty to assist veteran to obtain alleged new and material evidence to support
his parparesis claim.
-- Martin v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1449 (3 Vet. App. 553 (1992))
Department of Veterans Affairs failed in its duty to assist veteran.
-- Connolly v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-830 (1 Vet. App. 566 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in failing to obtain requested VA medical records.
-- Schafrath v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-114 (1 Vet. App. 589 (1991))
Veteran was entitled to have Secretary of Veterans Affairs assist him in obtaining records sought.
-- White v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-720 (1 Vet. App. 519 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals breached duty to assist veteran in his claim for non-service-connected pension for
unemployability.
-- Masors v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-540 (2 Vet. App. 526 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to fulfill its duty to assist defendant in establishing service connection for
post-traumatic stress disorder when it failed to obtain his military records.
-- Sayre v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-925 (2 Vet. App. 224 (1992))
Veteran presented sufficient evidence to trigger duty of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assist veteran in
developing his claim.
-- Ivey v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-744 (2 Vet. App. 320 (1992))
Court of Veterans Appeals is empowered to direct Secretary of Veterans Affairs to comply with statutory duty
to assist by seeking information relevant to veteran's claim for any federal department or agency.
-- Koulizos v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1339 (2 Vet. App. 350 (1992))
When claimant has submitted well-grounded claim, bringing existence of medical record to VA's attention
triggers VA's duty to assist claimant by trying to locate and obtain such records.
-- Moore v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-41 (1 Vet. App. 401 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to assist veteran in developing claim through sources of evidence other than
his lost service records.
-- Dixon v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1073 (3 Vet. App. 261 (1992))
Veteran presented well grounded claim triggering VA's affirmative duty to assist him in developing facts
pertinent to his claim.
-- Balicat v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1478 (3 Vet. App. 284 (1992))
Board failed in its duty to assist veteran in obtaining private medical records pertaining to his claim for service
connection for back disability.
-- Shaw v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-896 (3 Vet. App. 365 (1992))
56
Secretary of Veterans Affairs had duty to assist veteran in obtaining private medical records.
-- Grossman v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1161 (3 Vet. App. 445 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed in its duty to assist veteran in obtaining all of his Social Security
Administration records.
-- Martin v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1248 (4 Vet. App. 136 (1993))
VA failed to assist veteran in developing facts pertinent to his claim for service connection for hearing disorder.
-- Swanson v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1332 (1 Vet. App. 553 (1991))
Board failed in its duty to assist veteran in obtaining private medical records pertinent to his claim.
-- Antonian v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1826 (4 Vet. App. 179 (1993))
VA failed to satisfy its duty to assist incarcerated veteran claiming increased rating for post traumatic stress
disorder by not conducting current psychiatric examination.
-- Bolton v. Brown - Docket No. 94-342 (8 Vet. App. 185 (1995))
Remand, rather than panel review, was appropriate remedy after Secretary of Veterans Affairs admitted not
having satisfied his duty to assist claimant.
-- Goldman v. Brown - Docket No. 94-820 (9 Vet. App. 20 (1996))
Remand was required to determine whether death benefits claimant was aware of legal impediment to marriage
with veteran based on cohabitation after they divorced one year before his death.
-- Colon v. Brown - Docket No. 94-71 (9 Vet. App. 104 (1996))
Duty to assist required Board of Veterans' Appeals to attempt to corroborate veteran's testimony that he had
witnessed death of fellow soldier from incoming fire just moments after he waved to him.
-- Dizoglio v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1099 (9 Vet. App. 163 (1996))
Board of Veterans' Appeals did not breach its duty to assist when it failed to reschedule veteran's hearing.
-- Anderson v. Brown - Docket No. 95-782 (9 Vet. App. 542 (1996))
VA failed in its duty to assist veteran.
-- Falk v. West – Docket No. 96-1286 (12 Vet. App. 402 (1999))
Hearing officer violated regulatory duty to assist widow of veteran.
-- Costantino v. West – Docket No. 96-1037 (12 Vet. App. 517 (1999))
Without a well-grounded claim, veteran lacked a right to agency assistance.
-- Steck v. West – Docket No. 95-1219 (13 Vet. App. 92 (1999))
Board failed in its duty to assist by not obtaining social security records.
-- Tetro v. West – Docket No. 97-1192 (13 Vet. App. 404 (2000))
Veteran not entitled to medical examination absent well-grounded claim.
-- Chase v. West – Docket No. 98-1293 (13 Vet. App. 413 (2000))
Regional office(RO) did not violate the duty to assist.
57
-- Hurd v. West – Docket No.98-749 (13 Vet. App. 449 (2000))
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Letter concerning duty to obtain VA records is enforceable.
McCormick v. Gober – Docket No. 98-48 (14 Vet. App., 39 (2000))
Failure to assist veteran did not warrant tolling of final decision.
-- Tetro v. Gober – Docket No. 97-1192 (14 Vet App., 100 (2000))
Remand instructions concerning duty to assist were inadequate.
-- Campbell v. Gober – Docket No. 98-215 (14 Vet App., 142 (2000))
Any breach of duty to assist was harmless error.
-- Dixon v. Gober – Docket No. 98-1825 (14 Vet App., 168 (2000))
Remand required to resolve issue whether there was violation of duty to assist.
-- Nolen v. Gober – Docket No. 96-1756 (14 Vet. App., 183 (2001))
All provisions of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) are potentially applicable to claims pending on
date of the VCAA’s enactment.
-- Holliday v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1788 (14 Vet. App., 280 (2001))
Board’s determination not to provide medical examination not support by adequate statement.
-- Duenas v. Principi – Docket No. 03-1251 (18 Vet. App. 512 (2004))
DUTY TO INFORM: VA had duty to inform veteran that certain information would be necessary to make a
well-grounded claim for punctured eardrum.
-- Franzen v. Brown - Docket No. 93-405 (9 Vet. App. 235 (1996))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs had duty to inform veteran that his application for service-connected benefits for
Crohn's disease was incomplete.
-- Meyer v. Brown - Docket No. 94-850 (9 Vet. App. 425 (1996))
DUTY TO NOTIFY: Service-connection claimant must be given requisite evidentiary notice before
unfavorable decision.
-- Pelegrini v. Principi – Docket No. 01-944 (17 Vet. App., 412 (2004))
DUTY TO REVIEW: VA was not under legal duty to review all World War II and Korean War claims
submitted to it to ensure that all were correct.
-- Mason v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-145 (2 Vet. App. 487 (1992))
DYSTHYMIC DISORDER: Veteran's claims for service connection for dysthymic disorder and hearing loss
were not well-grounded.
-- Grivois v. Brown - Docket No. 92-289 (6 Vet. App. 136 (1994))
EAR & LUNG DISORDER: Veteran failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of
claim for service connection for ear and lung disorders.
-- Spalding v. Brown - Docket No. 95-302 (10 Vet. App. 6 (1996))
58
EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE: Veteran was not entitled to conversion of his eligibility under Chapter 34
educational assistance program to Chapter 30 educational assistance program.
-- Kelly v. Derwinski Docket No. 91-442 (3 Vet. App. 171 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to benefits under All Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program, or New GI
Bill.
-- Harvey v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1398 (6 Vet. App. 416 (1994))
Veteran who had not received honorable discharge based on three years continuous active service commencing
after June 20, 1985, was not eligible for Chapter 30 educational benefits.
-- Carr v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1257 (5 Vet. App. 2 (1993))
Veteran's daughter was eligible for Dependents' Educational assistance benefits.
-- Kimberlin v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1972 (5 Vet. App. 174 (1993))
Claim for additional change of educational program had to be remanded for readjudication in light of new law.
-- DeSousa v. Brown - Docket No. 91-259 (4 Vet. App. 561 (1993))
Vietnam veteran's new evidence did not support reopening of request to extend eligibility for education benefits
due to his treatment for panic depression.
-- Heebner v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1573 (3 Vet. App. 423 (1992))
EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS: Denial of education assistance benefits to veterans who previously received
tuition assistance from armed services was reasonable.
-- Tallman v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1506, 93-49 (7 Vet. App. 453 (1995))
Veteran was not entitled to educational benefits to attend institution which had not applied for approval of its
course of instruction with either state approving agency or Department of Veterans Affairs.
-- Piotrowski v. Brown - Docket No. 94-833 (9 Vet. App. 215 (1996))
Veteran's adult child was not entitled to retroactive educational assistance benefits that he first sought after
graduation.
-- Erspamer v. Brown - Docket No. (9 Vet. App. 507 (1996))
Statute providing reduced benefits for students attending schools in the Philippines does not violate equal
protection.
-- Reeves v. West – Docket No. 97-672 (11 Vet. App. 255 (1998))
Veteran was not entitled to benefits where commencing date of any award was after the enrollment period for
which the veteran sought benefits.
-- Taylor v. West – Docket No. 96-1572 ( 11 Vet. App. 436 (1998))
Daughter of deceased veteran was not eligible for dependents’ educational assistance (DEA).
-- Pfau v. West – Docket No. 97-1760 (12 Vet. App. 515 (1999))
Veteran not entitled to education benefits beyond 36 months.
-- Breeden v. West – Docket No. 98-734 (13 Vet. App. 398 (2000))
59
Claim for educational assistance benefits could not be reopened.
-- Keptner v. West – Docket No. 96-1226 (13 Vet. App., 535 (2000))
Statue delimiting spouse’s eligibility for dependants’ educational assistance (DEA) construed.
-- Ozer v. Principi – Docket No. 98-57 (14 Vet. App., 257 (2001))
Veteran was limited by statute to 48 months of education benefits.
-- Davenport v. Principi – Docket No. 99-2030 (16 Vet. App., 522 (2002))
Veteran’s earlier effective date claim was barred by res judicata.
-- Bissonnette v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1322 (18 Vet. App. 105 (2004))
EFFECTIVE DATE: Veteran was entitled to earlier effective date for higher special monthly compensation
rating.
-- Moreira v. Principi - Docket No. 91-698 (3 Vet. App. 522 (1992))
Veteran's contact with Department of Veterans Affairs out reach center did not constitute informal application
for service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder benefits. --- KL v. Brown - Docket No. 92-432 (5 Vet. App. 205 (1993))
Award granted on reopened claim could not be made effective prior to date of receipt of reopened claim.
-- Lapier v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1070 (5 Vet. App. 215 (1993))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs failed to make adequate showing that veteran had abandoned claim for
entitlement to earlier effective date for service-connected disability by failing to report for VA examination.
-- Hyson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1604 (5 Vet. App. 262 (1993))
Effective date of award of pension was date of receipt of veteran's new claim, not date of receipt of first claim
which was denied.
-- Jones v. Brown - Docket No. 92-87 (5 Vet. App. 79 (1993))
Veteran presented well-grounded claim of clear and unmistakable error regarding effective date of his back
disability.
-- Newman v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2146 (5 Vet. App. 99 (1993))
Veteran was entitled to remand to determine whether he was entitled to earlier effective date for permanent and
total disability rating for nonservice-connected pension based on spinal disorder.
-- Wilson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2183 (5 Vet. App. 103 (1993))
Finding of Board of Veterans' Appeals of no clear and unmistakable error in prior decisions denying veteran
entitlement to earlier effective date for special monthly compensation was arbitrary and capricious.
-- Marlow v. Brown - Docket No. 90-956 (5 Vet. App. 146 (1993))
Veteran was not entitled to earlier effective date for award of service connection and disability compensation
for chronic mononucleosis.
-- Kronberg v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1030 (4 Vet. App. 399 (1993))
Reversal of effective date for disability could not be predicated upon difference of opinion.
60
-- Ertell v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-918 (3 Vet. App. 18 (1991))
Effective date for award of increased benefits was date of receipt of veterans' request for reopening of claim.
-- Alexander v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-518 (3 Vet. App. 83 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals improperly failed to consider and address impact of veteran's pain on severity of his
low back disability.
-- Quarles v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-858 (3 Vet. App. 129 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to earlier effective date for total disability rating based upon individual
unemployability.
-- Firek v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-426 (3 Vet. App. 145 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to properly apply relevant provisions to decide date on which former POW
was entitled to total disability rating based on individual unemployability.
-- Servello v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-906 (3 Vet. App. 196 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals did not error in denying veteran's request for earlier effective date for assignment
of compensable disability rating for facial scarring.
-- Hazzard v. Brown - Docket No. 92-380 (4 Vet. App. 254 (1993))
Veteran was not entitled to earlier effective date for residuals of fracture to lumbar spine.
Brown - Docket No. 94-902 (9 Vet. App. 548 (1996))
-- Fleshman v.
Effective date of claim for increased compensation for schizophrenia was later of date of increase or date claim
was received.
-- Harper v. Brown - Docket No. 95-618 (10 Vet. App. 125 (1997))
Effective date of death benefits could not be earlier than date of her application to reopen her claim.
-- Smith v. West – Docket No. 96-1045 (11 Vet. App. 134 (1998))
Board applied incorrect standard in determining effective date for award of special monthly compensation
(SMC).
-- Tucker v. West – Docket No. 96-1493 (11 Vet. App. 369 (1998))
Effective date of an award of service connection was the date of veteran’s claim to reopen.
-- Link v. West – 97-459 (12 Vet. App. 39 (1998))
Board reasons for setting effective date were inadequate, requiring remand.
-- Jones v. West – Docket No. 96-1404 (12 Vet. App. 98 (1998))
Veteran did not establish an earlier effective date for foot injury.
-- Grover v. West – Docket No. 97-1048 (12 Vet. App. 109 (1999))
Statute did not require earlier effective date for 100% rating.
-- Meeks v. West – Docket No. 97-791 (12 Vet. App. 352 (1999))
Decision of the BVA setting effective date was clearly erroneous.
61
-- Perry v. West – Docket No. 98-1433 (12 Vet. App. 365 (1999))
Effective date of award of secondary service connection was 1993, not 1964.
-- Lalonde v. West – Docket No. 97-841 (12 Vet. App. 377 (1999))
Effective date determination was clearly erroneous.
-- Evans v. West – Docket No. 97-594 (12 Vet. App. 396 (1999))
Effective date determination was clearly erroneous.
-- Muehl v. West – Docket No. 98-539 (13 Vet. App. 159 (1999))
Effective date was date of claim reopening following final disallowance.
-- Melton v. West – Docket No. 98-358 (13 Vet. App. 442 (2000))
Court lacked jurisdiction to consider effective date issue.
-- Hibbard v. West – Docket No. 98-1932 (13 Vet. App., 546 (2000))
Board did not err in denying earlier effective date.
-- McColley v. West – Docket No. 99-460 (13 Vet. App., 553 (2000))
Veteran could use evidence submitted at any time to support claim for earlier effective date.
-- McGrath v. Gober – Docket No. 99-132 (14 Vet. App., 28 (2000))
Proper effective date of DIC award was date claim was submitted which led to award.
-- Williams v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1491 (15 Vet. App., 189 (2001))
Remand was necessary to determine effective date of increased rating.
-- Thomas v. Principi – Docket No. 01-40 (16 Vet. App., 197 (2002))
Date that claim for reopening was filed was proper effective date.
-- Sears v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1390 (16 Vet. App. 244 (2002))
Effective date claim remanded for readjudication in light of the VCAA.
-- Juarez v. Principi – Docket No. 01-292 (16 Vet. App., 518 (2002))
Record did not support effective date decision for DIC benefits.
-- Kay v. Principi – Docket No. 01-0427 (16 Vet. App., 529 (2002))
Claim to reopen could not result in earlier effective date of TDIU award.
-- Leonard v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1505 (17 Vet. App., 447 (2004))
Equitable tolling is not applicable to effective date statute.
-- Desbrow v. Principi – Docket No. 02-352 (18 Vet. App., 30 (2004))
Board’s effective-date decision lacked adequate statement of reasons and bases for conclusion.
-- Acosta v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1489 (18 Vet. App., 53 (2004))
Reopening of claim did not affect effective date.
-- Nelson v. Principi – Docket No. 02-2140 (18 Vet. App., 407 (2004))
62
ELBOW TENDINITIS: Finding of Board of Veterans' Appeals that elbow tendinitis was not service related
rested on plausible basis in record.
-- Coghill v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1049 (8 Vet. App. 342 (1995))
ELIGIBILITY: Character-of-discharge decision not subject to reconsideration absent new factual basis.
-- D’Amico v. West – Docket No. 97-786 (12 Vet. App. 264 (1999))
EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT: Veteran had no case pending before Court of Veterans Appeals on
date Equal Access to Justice Act became applicable to court where court had issued remand order and did not
retain jurisdiction.
-- Tilton v. Brown - Docket No. 91-391 (5 Vet. App. 23 (1993))
EQUITABLE TOLLING: One year filing requirement for specific request for retroactive pension benefits
was equitably tolled.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-64(2 Vet. App. 429 (1992))
ESTOPPEL: Department of Veterans Affairs was not estopped from denying service connection based upon
clerical error on form.
-- Lozano v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-151 (1 Vet. App. 184 (1991))
EVIDENCE: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to articulate reasons or bases for its implicit rejection of
veteran's evidence relating to claim for service-connected asthma.
-- Cartright v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-28 (2 Vet. App. 24 (1991))
Medical records submitted after veteran's death were to be considered by Board of Veterans' Appeals.
-- Hayes v. Brown - Docket No. 90-168 (1 Vet. App. 186 (1991))
Inadequacy of record required remand of decision denying service connection for skin cancer condition.
-- Sokowski v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-82 (2 Vet. App. 75 (1991))
Board of Veteran's Appeals failed to meet its statutory duty to consider all evidence and material of record in
denying veteran's claim for service connection for basal-cell carcinoma of neck.
-- Douglas v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-678 (2 Vet. App. 435 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals improperly disregarded veteran's lay evidence and other evidence of record in
determining entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss. --- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-635 (2 Vet. App. 137 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in concluding that without service medical records to verify that veteran
received treatment of diagnosis for his condition while in service, BVA had no choice but to deny benefits.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-624 (2 Vet. App. 147 (1992))
Failure to comply with notice requirements for use of board medical advisor's opinion required remand with
directions.
-- Williams v. Brown - Docket No. 93-317 (8 Vet. App. 133 (1995))
63
BVA erred in failing to provide veteran with notice of intention to use medical treatise, and opportunity to
respond thereto, as to claim for secondary service connection for diverticulosis.
-- Kirwin v. Brown Docket No. 92-1238 (8 Vet. App. 148 (1995))
Veteran's counter-designated items that were allegedly not forwarded by regional office to Board of Veterans'
Appeals would not be considered determinative, thus requiring remand.
-- Simington v. Brown - Docket No. 95-948 (9 Vet. App. 334 (1996))
Veteran's right to submit evidence could not be premised on preliminary showing of good cause.
Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1031 (9 Vet. App. 363 (1996))
--
EXHAUSTION: Failure to exhaust precluded consideration of issues on appeal.
-- Stuckey v. West – Docket No. 96-1373 (13 Vet. App. 163 (1999))
EXPERTS: Board of Veterans' Appeals' reliance on medical evidence to rebut expert opinions submitted by
claimant without providing claimant reasonable opportunity to respond required remand.
-- Daniels v. Brown - Docket No. 94-28 (9 Vet. App. 348 (1996))
EXTENSIONS OF TIME: Heavy caseload does not justify repeated requests for extensions of time by
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
-- Maquiling v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1512 (3 Vet. App. 485 (1992))
EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF: Petition for extraordinary relief rendered moot by issuance of SOC.
-- Cox v. West – Docket No. 95-1068 (12 Vet. App. 270 (1999))
Court lacked jurisdiction over veteran’s petition for mandamus.
-- Yi v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1936 (15 Vet. App., 265 (2001))
Incarcerated veteran lacked standing to challenge termination of his mother’s appointment.
-- Belton v. Principi – Docket No. 02-1453 (17 Vet. App., 209 (2003))
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT: Veteran's widow failed to satisfy requirements for entitlement to extraordinary
writ with respect to her dependency and indemnity compensation.
-- Dacoron v. Brown - Docket No. 92-789 (4 Vet. App. 115 (1993))
FACIAL INJURY: Veteran was entitled to combined ten percent rating for disfigurement with additional ten
percent rating for tender and painful scars and third ten percent rating for facial muscle injury interfering with
mastication.
-- Esteban v. Brown - Docket No. 92-693 (6 Vet. App. 259 (1994))
FACT-FINDING: Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or
bases for rejecting claim for increased rating for left hand condition.
-- Evans v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1220 (9 Vet. App. 273 (1996))
Board of Veterans' Appeals' statement that "evidence does not show marked interference with employment
resulting" did not satisfy requirement of providing written statement of findings and conclusions and reasons for
them.
-- Bagwell v. Brown - Docket No. 95-0238 (9 Vet. App. 337 (1996))
64
Board of Veterans' Appeals' statement of reasons or bases for denial of assistance for claim that extra-schedualr
evaluation was required was inadequate.
-- Fleshman v. Brown - Docket No. 94-902 (9 Vet. App. 406 (1996))
FEES: Veteran was not entitled to waiver of filing fee for writ of mandamus.
-- Morris v. Brown - Docket No. (9 Vet. App. 1 (1996))
FEE-BASIS: Board of Veterans' Appeals must determine whether eligibility for fee-basis outpatient services
was question of eligibility for outpatient treatment, within its jurisdiction to review.
-- Webb v. Brown - Docket No. 93-698 (7 Vet. App. 122 (1994))
FEES AND EXPENSES: Veteran was not entitled to reimbursement of expenses under Equal Access to
Justice Act (EAJA).
-- McCay v. Gober - Docket No. 94-881 (10 Vet. App. 429 (1997))
Veteran was not entitled to attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for
decision of Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) not to reopen service connection claim.
-- Pellerin v. Brown - Docket No. 94-687 (10 Vet. App. 415 (1997))
Separate notice of disagreement (NOD) was required to appeal rating and effective date elements after grant of
service connection on remand.
-- Holland v. Gober - Docket No. 94-1046 (10 Vet. App. 433 (1997))
FIDUCIARY: Court of Veterans Appeals had no jurisdiction to review Secretary of Veterans Affairs' decision
to appoint someone other than veteran's daughter, who was appointed as conservator by state court, as fiduciary
for payment of benefits.
-- Willis v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1239 (6 Vet. App. 433 (1994))
FINALITY: Decision by Board of Veterans' Appeals was not final.
-- Harris v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-240 (1 Vet. App. 180 (1991))
If following initial Board decision, claimant files motion for reconsideration with Board during judicial appeal
period, finality of initial Board decision is abated by motion for reconsideration.
-- Rosler v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-370 (1 Vet. App. 241 (1991))
FINGER INJURY: Veteran's Administration inadequate assessment of finger injury and Board of Veterans'
Appeals action in permitting assessment to stand were prejudicial error.
-- Shipwash v. Brown - Docket No. 94-0021 (8 Vet. App. 218 (1995))
FORFEITURES: Forfeiture decision may be reopened upon new evidence or finding of CUE.
-- Trilles v. West – 97-192 (13 Vet. App. 314 (2000)
FORFEITURE OF BENEFITS: BVA's failure to articulate satisfactory explanation for its determination that
there was no obvious error in previous BVA decisions finding that veteran forfeited benefits through disloyalty
warranted remand.
-- Lizaso v. Brown - Docket No. 92-33 (5 Vet. App. 380 (1993))
FRAUD: Decision to deny veteran waiver of recovery for overpayment of improved pension benefits based on
veteran's fraud was not clearly erroneous.
-- Farless v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1372 (2 Vet. App. 555 (1992))
65
FROSTBITE: Board of Veterans' Appeals provided inadequate reasons for concluding that veteran was not
service connected for residuals of frostbite, requiring remand of his claim.
-- Goss v. Brown - Docket No. 94-328 (9 Vet. App. 109 (1996))
FROZEN FEET: World War II veteran's uncontradicted assertion of having experienced frozen feet in
combat that was consistent with circumstances of his service was satisfactory evidence that his condition
occurred in service, supporting remand of his claim.
-- Russo v. Brown - Docket No. 93-814 (9 vet. App. 46 (1996))
FULL COURT DECISION: Appellant did not establish basis for decision by the full Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims.
-- Carpenter v. Gober - Docket No. 97-676 (14 Vet. App., 77 (2000))
GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT: Veteran's ability to work only sporadically did not constitute ability to engage
in substantially gainful employment.
-- Moore v. Derwinski- Docket No. 90-133 (1 Vet. App. 83 (1991))
GLAUCOMA: Claim for entitlement for service connection for glaucoma was not well grounded.
-- Jones v. Brown - Docket No. 93-315 (7 Vet. App. 134 (1994))
GONORRHEA: There was clear and unmistakable evidence that veteran's gonorrhea existed before service.
-- Junstrom v. Brown - Docket No. 93-210 (6 Vet. App. 264 (1994))
GRAVES' DISEASE: Remand was required on veteran's claim for direct service connection for Graves'
disease.
-- Santiago v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1036 (5 Vet. App. 288 (1993))
GUNSHOT WOUND: Plausible basis existed for Board of Veterans' Appeals' denial of increased evaluation
for residuals of gunshot wound.
-- Francisco v. Brown - Docket No. 93-76 (7 Vet. App. 55 (1994))
HAND INJURY: Board of Veteran's Appeal failed to consider all evidence before it or state reasons for its
findings in denying service-connection claim for residuals of injuries to hand.
--Keel v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1189 (8 Vet. App. 82 (1995))
Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) was not clearly erroneous in finding that veteran did meet criteria necessary
for monthly compensation for loss of use of his right hand.
-- Dinsay v. Brown - Docket No. 94-149 (9 Vet. App. 79 (1996))
HEAD INJURY: BVA denial of service connection for residuals of head injury was not clearly erroneous.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1495 (5 Vet. App. 300 (1993))
HEADACHE: BVA's denial of claim of service connection for headaches, claimed as secondary to serviceconnected residual shrapnel wound, was premature.
-- Magana v. Brown - Docket No. 93-556 (7 Vet. App. 224 (1994))
66
HEALTH CARE: BVA had jurisdiction to review a determination by VA Medical Center that veteran was not
eligible for fee-basis outpatient treatment for service-connected disabilities.
-- Meakin v. West – Docket No. 96-1387 (11 Vet. App. 183 (1998))
Regulations governing reimbursement for non-VA care construed.
-- Bellezza v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1038 (16 Vet. App., 145 (2002))
Board failed to provide adequate basis for decision denying reimbursement for private testing.
-- Jeffcoat v. Prinicipi – Docket No. 00-1785 (17 Vet. App., 213 (2003))
HEARING LOSS: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons for denial of service
connection for left-ear hearing loss.
-- Hensley v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1179 (5 Vet. App. 155 (1993))
Audiograms, reflecting hearing tests conducted 45 and 12 years after veteran's separation from service, were not
"material" evidence for purposes of reopening claim for service connection for right-ear hearing loss.
-- Heuer v. Brown - Docket No. 93-992 (7 Vet. App. 379 (1995))
BVA failed to provide adequate statement of its reasons or bases for denying veteran's claim for service
connection for hearing loss and tinnitus.
-- Kelly v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1286 (7 Vet. App. 471 (1995))
Board of Veterans' Appeals' denial of veteran's service connection claim for hearing loss was not clearly
erroneous without evidence of noise trauma during service and based on his normal hearing upon separation.
-- Blackburn v. Brown -Docket No. 93-1037 (8 Vet. App. 97 (1995))
Record contained plausible basis to support BVA's denial of service connection for veteran's hearing loss and
tinnitus.
-- Godfrey v. Brown - Docket No. 94-169 (8 Vet. App. 113 (1995))
Court of Veterans' Appeals did not have adequate basis for judicial review of Board of Veterans' Appeals
decision as to veteran's hearing loss.
-- Flash v. Brown - Docket No. 94-0206 (8 Vet. App. 332 (1995))
Mistake in listing veteran's service-connected hearing loss as having been incurred in war was not clear and
unmistakable error.
-- Winslow v. Brown - Docket No. 95-197 (8 Vet. App. 469 (1996))
Veteran's claims for hearing loss and diabetes incurred or aggravated during active duty for training were wellgrounded.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. (9 Vet. App. 462 (1996))
HEART CONDITION: Veteran's failure to offer competent medical evidence establishing nexus between
service or veteran's service-connected skin condition and his heart condition rendered his service connected
heart condition claim not well grounded.
-- Epps v. Brown - Docket No. 93-438 (9 Vet. App. 341 (1996))
67
HEART DISEASE: Veteran who did not have sustained diastolic reading of 100 or more was not entitled to
disability rating of more than 10% for service-connected hypertensive vascular heart disease.
-- Zimmerman v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1964 (4 Vet. App. 1 (1992))
Record contained plausible basis for decision to deny increased disability rating for hypertensive cardiovascular
disease.
-- Fisher v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1816 (4 Vet. App. 57 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in decision that there was no service-connected rheumatic heart disease.
-- Baughmnan v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-735 (1 Vet. App. 563 (1991))
Veteran submitted new and material evidence to support reopening of decision of Board of Veterans’ Appeals
denying service connection.
-- Sutton v. Brown - Docket No. (9 Vet. App. 553 (1996))
HERNIATED DISC: Board of Veterans' Appeals' finding that veteran did not suffer from residuals of
herniated disc was clearly erroneous.
-- Look v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-476 (2 Vet. App. 157 (1992))
HERPES: Remand was required for further development of facts concerning herpes disability claim.
-- Bowers v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-565 (2 Vet. App. 675 (1992))
HIP PAIN: Board of Veterans' Appeals improperly relied on VA examination that was not intended to
evaluate complaints of hip pain to discount veteran's reports of pain.
-- Hicks v. Brown - Docket No. 94-287 (8 Vet. App. 417 (1995))
HIV INFECTION: Remand was required on veteran's claim for service connection for human
immunodeficiency virus infection.
-- MN v. Brown - Docket No. 92-444 (5 Vet. App. 173 (1993))
HOME LOAN DEBT: Veteran was only entitled to partial waiver of recovery of home loan indebtedness.
-- Nelson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1835 (4 Vet. App. 298 (1993))
HOME LOAN GUARANTY: Decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) concerning waiver of
indebtedness on guaranteed home loan is review for determination of whether decision was arbitrary capricious,
abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.
-- Jager v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-340 (2 Vet. App. 155 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide reasons or bases for denial of waiver of recovery of loan guaranty
indebtedness.
-- Elkins v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-158 (2 Vet. App. 422 (1992))
HOSPITAL REIMBURSEMENT: Private hospital was not entitled to be reimbursed for cost of care of
veteran.
-- St. Patrick Hospital v. Principi - Docket No. 91-557 (4 Vet. App. 55 (1993))
HOSPITALS: Veteran was not entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred while he was
hospitalized at non-VA facility.
-- Zimick v. West – Docket No. 94-1125 (11 Vet. App. 45 (1998))
68
VA was obligated to pay for veteran’s private hospital expenses.
-- Cantu v. Principi – Docket No. 02-0682 (18 Vet. App., 92 (2004))
HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS: Board of Veterans' Appeals' denial of service connection for
human immunodeficiency virus was not clearly erroneous.
-- Kern v. Brown - Docket No. 92-460 (4 Vet. App. 351 (1993))
HUNTINGTON’S CHOREA: Veteran's claims, which involved questions of medical etiology, were not well
grounded without expert medical evidence.
-- Dean v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1235 (8 Vet. App. 449 (1995))
HYPERTENSION: Veteran failed to submit well-grounded claim of service-connection for hypertension.
-- Mallik v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2100 (5 Vet. App. 345 (1993))
There was plausible basis for denial of service connection for hypertension as secondary to service-connected
diabetes mellitus.
-- Flynn v. Brown - Docket No. 93-110 (6 Vet. App. 500 (1994))
IMPROVED BENEFITS: Department of Veterans Benefit circular providing beneficiaries would be
"furnished" improved pension election card required receipt rather than mere mailing of card.
-- Montalvo v. Brown - Docket No. 93-553 (7 Vet. App. 312 (1994))
INCARCERATED VETERANS: Provisions prohibiting payment of pension benefits to veterans during
incarceration were constitutional.
-- Latham v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1520 (4 Vet. App. 265 (1993))
INCOMPETENCY: Statute mandated lump-sum payment to withheld benefits if incompetent veteran is rated
competent for six months.
-- Felton v. Principi - Docket No. 90-965 (4 Vet. App. 61 (1993))
Decision by the Board of Veteran's Appeals with respect to veteran's incompetency to handle disability benefits
was to be vacated.
-- Coleman v. Brown - Docket No. 90-966 (5 Vet. App. 371 (1993)
INDIVIDUAL UNEMPLOYABILITY: Remand was required on veteran's unemployability claim.
-- Hodges v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1093 (5 Vet. App. 375 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals' decision to deny veteran's claim for total disability rating for compensation based
on individual unemployability had plausible basis in record.
-- Gary v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1483 (7 Vet. App. 229 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals had duty to supplement record.
-- Friscia v. Brown - Docket No. 93-766 (7 Vet. App. 294 (1994))
Denial of rating based on individual unemployability was clearly erroneous.
-- Kaiser v. Brown - Docket No. 92-35 (5 Vet. App. 411 (1993))
69
Board of Veterans' Appeals' decision that its prior termination of benefits based on individual unemployability
was not clear and unmistakable error was arbitrary and capricious.
-- Olson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-542 (5 Vet. App. 430 (1993))
BVA’s should have reviewed adjudication of claim for total rating based on individual disability.
-- Garlejo v. Brown - Docket No.95-713 (10 Vet. App. 229 (1997))
Consideration of total disability based upon individual unemployability was required.
-- Roberson v. Principi – Docket No. 00-7009 (251 F3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001))
INJUNCTION: Veteran was not entitled to injunction delaying pending physical examination by Department
of Veterans Affairs pending appeal from rating of 90% service connected disability.
-- Moore v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-133 (1 Vet. App. 83 (1991))
Veteran's request for injunctive relief against further debt collection activities by Secretary of Veterans Affairs
was moot after Secretary agreed not to pursue further collection activity pending decision on appeal.
-- Kaplan v. Brown - Docket No. 94-611 (7 Vet. App. 425 (1995))
Motion for injunction was moot.
--Bennett v. Brown - Docket No. 95-168 (8 Vet. App. 81 (1995))
INSANITY: Casual nexus was required between acts leading to veteran's discharge and his insanity for him to
retain his eligibility for veterans benefits.
-- Cropper v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1187 (6 Vet. App. 450 (1994))
Insanity exception to veterans benefits bar for discharge under less than honorable conditions due to willful and
persistent misconduct requires only insanity at time of commission of offense leading to person's discharge.
-- Struck v. Brown - Docket No. 94-322 (9 Vet. App. 145 (1996))
Holder of general power of attorney (GPA) could not change beneficiaries of veteran’s National Service Life
Insurance (NSLI) policy.
-- Curtis v. West – Docket No. 96-582 (11 Vet. App. 129 (1998))
INSURANCE: Finding that veterans’s signature was authentic was not clearly erroneous.
--Klekar v. West – Docket No. 97-1518 (12 Vet. App. 503 (1999))
Test for change of NSLI policy beneficiary set forth.
-- Fagan v. West – Docket No. 97-1276 (13 Vet. App. 48 (1999))
TDIP provision of NSLI policy was invalid.
-- Lee v. West – Docket No. 98-726 (13 Vet. App. 388 (2000))
JUDGES: Decision of single judge of Court of Veterans Appeals not to recuse himself could not be reviewed
by panel of Court.
-- Aronson v. Brown - Docket No. 92-561 (4 Vet. App. 133 (1993))
Judge was not subject to disqualification based upon his order to show cause why documents should be
included as part of record on appeal.
-- Higgins v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2225 (7 Vet. App. 389 (1995))
70
Veterans was not eligible for Service Disabled Veterans’ Insurance (SDVI)
-- Alleman v. Principi – Docket No. 00-242 (16 Vet. App. 253 (2002))
JUDICIAL REVIEW: 1987 Board of Veterans' Appeals decision was a final decision which could not be
reviewed by Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- Robie v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-42 (1 Vet. App. 612 (1991))
Veteran's attempt to reopen case at Department of Veterans Affairs regional office was a "new case" which
could be considered by BVA despite veteran's pending appeal in Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- Pellerin v. Brown - Docket No. 91-445 (5 Vet. App. 360 (1993))
Court of Veteran's Appeals has jurisdiction to review denial by chairman of BVA of reconsideration of prior
and final BVA decisions.
-- Patterson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1668 (5 Vet. App. 362 (1993))
Determination by Board of Veterans Appeals of degree of veteran's impairment was one of fact entitled to
judicial deference.
-- Lovelace v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-55 (1 Vet. App. 73 (1990))
JURISDICTION: Record was inadequate to allow determination as to whether Board of Veterans' Appeals
properly exercised jurisdiction to conduct de novo review.
-- Rowell v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1052 (4 Vet. App. 9 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review Board of Veterans' Appeals' decision which denied
rating in excess of 10% and effective date retroactive to 1946 based on original notice of disagreement from
January 1988.
-- West v. Brown - Docket No. 92-420 (7 Vet. App. 329 (1994))
Final judgment decided according to then applicable jurisdictional rule, later over ruled, could not be
collaterally attacked as void.
-- Breslow v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1141 (5 Vet. App. 560 (1993))
Jurisdictionally valid NOD must have been filed for claim in order to empower Court of Veterans Appeals to
review denial of reconsideration of claim by Chairman of BVA.
-- Pagaduan v. Brown - Docket No. 93-148 (6 Vet. App. 9 (1993))
Veteran's letter to the Court of Veterans Appeals was construed as effectively asserting that court had
jurisdiction although it did not contain jurisdictional statement.
-- Quigley, Matter of - Docket No. 89-61 (1 Vet. App. 1 (1990))
Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction over appeal where notice of disagreement predated date on
which Court obtained jurisdiction.
-- Skinner. v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-337 (4 Vet. App. 141 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals had jurisdiction under All Writs Act to consider petition for writ of mandamus in aid
of potential or prospective jurisdiction.
-- Erspamer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-14 (1 Vet. App. 3 (1990))
71
During formative period of court, before it had physical facilities and rules, timely written expression of desire
for judicial review submitted to claimant's regional office was adequate as substitute notice of appeal.
-- Torres v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-126 (1 Vet. App. 15 (1991))
Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction over appeal.
-- Doub v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-54 (1 Vet. App. 17 (1990))
Notice of disagreement was filed after jurisdictional date and thus provided Court of Veterans Appeals with
jurisdiction to hear appeal.
-- Whitt v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-16 (1 Vet. App. 40 (1991))
Court of Veterans Appeals had jurisdiction to review decision of Board of Veterans Appeals.
-- Chadwick v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-316 (1 Vet. App. 74 (1990))
Statute limiting judicial review of decisions of Board of Veterans' Affairs to cases where notice of disagreement
was filed on or after threshold date for jurisdiction was not unconstitutional.
-- Strott v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-296 (1 Vet. App. 114 (1991))
Notice of appeal was not timely filed.
-- Elsevier v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-436 (1 Vet. App. 150 (1991))
Court of Veterans Appeals had jurisdiction over appeal from Board decision.
-- Stokes v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-122 (1 Vet. App. 201 (1991))
Decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals was not final and thus Court did not have jurisdiction to review claim.
-- Hoyer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-223 (1 Vet. App. 208 (1991))
Notice of appeal was not timely filed and thus Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction.
-- Langston v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1294 (1 Vet. App. 239 (1991))
Rule 35(b) of the court's rules permitted motion for review by court en banc following denial of review of threejudge panel of single judge decision on merits of appeal to court.
-- Morris v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1207 (3 Vet. App. 484 (1992))
Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction to review Board's decisions with regard to percent of
disability prior to November 18, 1988.
-- Gonzales-Soto v. Principi - Docket No. 91-183 (3 Vet. App. 527 (1992))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over widow's appeal from denial of service connection for
malignant melanoma.
-- Coombs v. Principi - Docket No. 90-968 (3 Vet. App. 530 (1992))
Claim of veteran's son for accrued benefits was not subject of prior valid notice of disagreement so as to
preclude jurisdiction.
-- Laconti v. Principi - Docket No. 90-918 (3 Vet. App. 550 (1992))
Notice of disagreement did not provide jurisdiction to Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- King v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-3534 (3 Vet. App. 242 (1992))
72
Regulation authorizing Board of Veterans' Appeals or VA regional office to revise previous decisions where
there was "clear and unmistakable error" was valid.
-- Russell v. Principi - Docket No. 90-396 (3 Vet. App. 310 (1992))
Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction over appeal from decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals
that veteran was legitimately indebted to it for overpayment regardless of grant of waiver of indebtedness.
-- Waterhouse v. Principi - Docket No. 91-841 (3 Vet. App. 473 (1992))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked authority to provide requested tax remedies that did not involve veterans
benefit determination.
-- Balick v. Brown - Docket No. 94-749 (8 Vet. App. 88 (1995))
There can be only one valid notice of disagreement (NOD) as to particular claim until final region office or
BVA decision has been rendered in that matter or appeal has been withdrawn by claimant.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 94-14 (8 Vet. App. 217 (1994))
Court of Veterans' Appeals lacked jurisdiction over denial of request for increased rating for service connected
eye disability and total disability.
-- Grantham v. Brown - Docket No. 92-17 (8 Vet. App. 228 (1995))
Intermediate rating decision which never became final did not preclude jurisdiction.
-- Valasco v. West – Docket No. 98-1100 (12 Vet. App. 172 (1999))
Court lacked jurisdiction to review claim for TDIU rating.
-- Herlehy v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1667 (15 Vet. App., 33 (2001))
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims lacked jurisdiction over remand issues.
-- Hayre v. Principi – Docket No. 95-984 (15 Vet. App., 48 (2001))
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims lacks jurisdiction over FOIA matters.
-- Struck v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1929 (15 Vet. App., 213 (2001))
Jurisdiction was lacking due to failure to file timely notice of disagreement (NOD).
-- Tellex v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1886 (15 Vet. App., 233 (2001))
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims lacked jurisdiction over attorney accreditation decision.
-- Bates v. Principi – Docket No. 03-1903 (17 Vet. App., 443 (2004))
Board remand order was not a “final decision” within Court’s jurisdiction.
-- Breeden v. Principi – Docket No. 01-2095 (17 Vet. App., 475 (2004))
Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction over appeal from decision of Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
-- Cabalza v. Principi – Docket No. 04-7125 (114 Fed. Appx. 391 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
KIDNEY CONDITION: Board of Veterans' Appeals was not clearly erroneous in finding that veteran was not
entitled to increased rating for service-connected kidney condition.
73
-- Booton v. Brown - Docket No. 94-910 (8 Vet. App. 368 (1995)).
KNEE DISABILITY: BVA failed to provide adequate reasons for bases for rejecting treating physician's
medical opinion that veteran's current knee disability could be causally related to in-service trauma many years
earlier.
-- Rollings v. Brown - Docket No. 93-984 (8 Vet. App. 8 (1995))
Board of Veterans' Appeals was not arbitrary and capricious in rating veteran's bilateral knee disability as
arthritis after mischaracterizing it as traumatic arthritis, rather than osteoarthitis.
-- Arnesen v. Brown - Docket No. 94-189 (8 Vet. App. 432 (1995))
KNEE INJURY: Veteran failed to submit any medical evidence to support claim that knee and spine
disabilities resulted from VA treatment or surgery.
-- Contreras v. Brown - Docket No. 91-990 (5 Vet. App. 492 (1993))
New testimony from physician was new and material evidence for reopening claim for service connection for
right knee disability.
-- Rykhus v. Brown - Docket No. 92-743 (6 Vet. App. 354 (1993))
KNEES: Medical evidence that veteran's service-connected arteriosclerosis obliterans from residuals of frozen
feet resulted in "moderate limitation of function of his feet and legs" established that his claim was wellgrounded.
-- Lynch v. Brown - Docket No. 95-914 (9 Vet. App. 456 (1996))
LACHES: Laches was not defense to veteran's claim for service-connected disability compensation.
-- Manio v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-86 (1 Vet. App. 140 (1991))
LAY EVIDENCE: Internal inconsistencies in lay evidence presented by combat veteran to establish that right
leg injury was incurred in service and veteran's own affidavit supported finding that lay evidence was not
"satisfactory evidence."
-- Caluza v. Brown - Docket No. 90-0818 (7 Vet. App. 498 (1995))
LEGAL SERVICES: Disbarment of attorney from practice before the Court of Veterans Appeals was
warranted.
-- In re Smith – Docket No. 98-8004 (11 Vet. App. 379 (1998))
LIFE INSURANCE: Veteran validly changed beneficiary on his National Service Life Insurance (NSLI)
policy from former wife to administrator of his estate.
-- Young v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-53 (1 Vet. App. 70 (1990))
Evidence of veteran's intent to change beneficiary of NSLI policy or avert act done to effectuate that intent did
not have to be writing by veteran.
-- Jones v. Brown - Docket No. 92-388 (6 Vet. App. 388 (1994))
VA's error in failing to give veteran information concerning lapse of his National Service Life Insurance Policy
and reinstatement procedures, once VA obtained his new address, was harmless.
-- Connelly v. Brown - Docket No. 93-809 (8 Vet. App. 84 (1995))
Court of Veterans Appeals had jurisdiction over dispute regarding veteran's life insurance.
74
-- Young v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-53 (1 Vet. App. 70 (1990))
Claimant failed to rebut presumption of veteran’s testamentary capacity to change beneficiary designation.
-- Elias v. Brown - Docket No. 95-237 (1 Vet. App. 259 (1997))
State divorce decree did not bar veteran from changing beneficiary of his National Service Life Insurance
policy.
-- Wolfe v. Gober - Docket No. 97-153 (11 Vet. App. 1 (1997))
LIMITATIONS: Statute requiring application to be filed within one year of separation for benefits to be
retroactive from date of service was constitutional.
-- Wright v. Gober - Docket No. 95-135 (10 Vet. App. 343 (1997))
Claimant’s motion for reconsideration to Board of Veterans’ Appeals was not timely filed.
-- Paniag v. Gober - Docket No. 95-728 (10 Vet. App. 359 (1997))
LIVER CANCER: Presumptive service connection for liver cancer attributed to radiation exposure during
service did not apply based on medical evidence that carcinoma in veteran's liver resulted from metastasized
colon cancer.
-- Ramey v. Brown - Docket No. 94-877 (9 Vet. App. 40 (1996))
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM: Board of Veterans' Appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying
veteran entitlement to complete waiver of recovery of home loan indebtedness.
-- Green v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-944 (1 Vet. App. 570 (1991))
Withholding veteran's disability benefits to collect debt owed to the Department of Veterans Affairs Home Loan
Guaranty Program did not violate equity and good conscience.
-- Branham v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-193 (1 Vet. App. 93 (1990))
Decision by Department of Veterans Affairs to waive portion of debt under the loan guaranty program was not
arbitrary, capricious nor abuse of discretion.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-306 (1 Vet. App. 267 (1991))
Department of Veterans Affairs failed to correctly apply law applicable to releases from liability under Home
Loan Guaranty Program.
-- Travelstead v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-5 (1 Vet. App. 344 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to make determination on veteran's challenge to
validity of asserted debt under the VA home loan guaranty program.
-- Schaper v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-463 (1 Vet. App. 430 (1991))
Decision which waived one-fourth of loan guarantee indebtedness and interest debt owed by veteran was
supported by adequate reasons and bases.
-- Stone v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-498 (2 Vet. App. 56 (1992))
LOAN GUARANTY: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for holding
veteran liable for balance of VA-guaranteed loan on which purchasers defaulted, requiring remand.
-- Carlson v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-590(2 Vet. App. 144 (1992))
75
Evidence supported finding that veteran acted in bad faith, precluding waiver of indebtedness under VA home
loan guaranty.
-- East v. Brown - Docket No. 94-60 (8 Vet. App. 34 (1995))
Remand was required for determination of specific grounds for Board of Veterans' Appeals' (BVA) finding that
veteran acted in bad faith as basis for denying his request for waiver of recovery of loan guaranty indebtedness.
-- Richards v. Brown - Docket No. 94-821 (9 Vet. App. 255 (1996))
Veteran did not have property interest in his Department of Veterans Affairs loan guaranty entitlement or
equitable right of redemption to be entitled to due process or just compensation.
-- Wells v. Brown - Docket No.
LOANS: Board of Veterans' Appeals provided adequate reasons or bases for its decision to deny waiver of
outstanding indebtedness on VA guaranteed loan.
-- Parker v. Brown - Docket No. 94-245 (9 Vet. App. 476 (1996))
VA was not required to provide counseling for veteran before foreclosure of mortgage loan partly guaranteed by
the VA.
-- Berotti v. West – Docket No. 96-474 (11 Vet. App. 193 (1998))
LOW BACK CONDITION: Veteran presented new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously
disallowed claim for low-back condition.
-- Solomon v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1391 (6 Vet. App. 396 (1994))
LUMBAR DISC DISEASE: Evidence supported denial of service connection for lumbar disc disease.
-- Thibault v. Brown - Docket No. 92-885 (5 Vet. App. 520 (1993))
LUNG DISORDERS: Veteran failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for
service connection for lung disorder.
-- Ashford v. Brown - Docket No. 94-0384 (10 Vet. App. 120 (1997))
LYME DISEASE: Veteran's claim for service connection for Lyme disease was not well-grounded.
-- Poor v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1708 (6 Vet. App. 314 (1993))
MAILING OF DECISION: Presumption that decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals was mailed on same
date stamped on decision was not warranted.
-- Sadine v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-362 (1 Vet. App. 26 (1990))
Evidence was sufficient to rebut presumption that Board of Veteran's Appeals mailed copy of written decision
to claimant at last known address.
-- Chute v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1468 (1 Vet. App. 352 (1991))
MANDAMUS: Veteran had received all the relief he requested and thus he was not entitled to mandamus
relief.
-- Caldwell v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-917 (1 Vet. App. 466 (1991))
76
Veteran was not entitled to mandamus relief based on allegation that claims had been pending before VA for 15
years.
-- Bullock v. Brown - Docket No. 94-429 (7 Vet. App. 69 (1994))
Veteran was not entitled to a petition for writ of mandamus alleging that the BVA exceeded its jurisdiction.
-- Herrmann v. Brown - Docket No. 95-97 (8 Vet. App. 60 (1995))
Veteran was not entitled to writ of mandamus requiring BVA to grant total disability rating based on individual
unemployability as he failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
-- Friscia v. Brown - Docket No. 95-485 (8 Vet. App. 90 (1995))
Mandamus did not lie to expedite appeal.
-- Costanza v. West – Docket No. 98-2415 (12 Vet. App. 133 (1999))
Veteran was not entitled to writ of mandamus.
-- Lane v. West – Docket No. 98-650 (12 Vet. App. 220 (1999))
Petitioner did not show entitlement to writ of mandamus.
-- Cowart v. Principi – Docket No. 02-342 (16 Vet. App., 18 (2002))
MARRIAGE: Veteran's marriage to his third wife was not valid and, thus, he was not entitled to additional
disability pension benefits.
-- Badua v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1542 (5 Vet. App. 472 (1993))
Statute recognizing marriage only if valid in state where parties resided at time of marriage or time benefits
accrued was not unconstitutional under free exercise clause.
-- Bierer v. Brown - Docket No. 92-903 (6 Vet. App 563 (1994)
MEDICAL EVIDENCE: Board of Veterans Appeals improperly relied solely on medical treatise to rebut
letters from physicians stating that veteran's conditions were caused by post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Herlehy v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1916 (4 Vet. App. 122 (1993))
Treating physician rule not adopted.
-- Guerrieri v. Brown - Docket No. 90-679 (4 Vet. App. 467 (1993))
BVA's failure to specifically discuss each additional expert opinion alleging relationship between stress and
veteran's death was not error.
-- Wray v. Brown - Docket No. 93-289 (7 Vet App. 488 (1995))
Hearsay medical evidence, transmitted by layperson, was not sufficient to establish a well-grounded claim.
-- Robinette v. Brown - Docket No. 93-985 (8 Vet. App. 69 (1995))
MEDICAL EXAMINATION: Veteran was entitled to thorough contemporaneous medical examination in
light of unavailability of his service medical records.
-- Milostan v. Brown - Docket No. 92-140 (4 Vet. App. 250 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals should have obtained medical examination as to relationship of veteran's in-service
and present back disorder.
-- Myers v. Brown - Docket No. 90-221 (5 Vet. App. 3 (1993))
77
Delay of Secretary of Veterans Affairs in scheduling medical examination did not warrant imposition of
sanctions.
-- Ebert v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1402 (4 Vet. App. 434 (1993))
Veteran was not entitled to current medical examination.
-- De Los Reyes v. Brown - Docket No. 92-250 (4 Vet. App. 548 (1993))
Veteran was not entitled to increased benefits based on his refusal to submit to current VA medical
examination.
-- Dusek v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1596 (2 Vet. App. 519 (1992))
Veteran who received 10% service connected evaluation for left eye condition was entitled to have his right eye
examined.
-- Aronson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 92-561 (2 Vet. App. 580 (1992))
Veteran was entitled to examination in connection with claim for residuals of fractured nose.
-- Steelman v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-53 (4 Vet. App. 335 (1993))
Remand was required to enable veteran to obtain medical examination to determine current level of his serviceconnected maxillary disability.
-- Proscelle v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-570 (2 Vet. App. 629 (1992))
Remand was necessary for contemporaneous medical examination before BVA could determine whether rating
increases were warranted for osteomyelitis and right ankle fusion with arthrodesis.
-- Seals v. Brown - Docket No. 93-686 (8 Vet. App. 291 (1995))
MEDICAL EXPERT: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to satisfy mandate that it state reasons or bases for
its decisions when it denied claim for service connection based on opinion of independent medical expert that
did not account for all evidence in support of claim. -- Gabrielson v. Brown
-- Docket No. 93-532 (7 Vet. App. 36 (1994))
MEDICAL OPINION: Board of Veterans' Appeal erred in its use of medical opinion obtained from its own
medical advisor.
-- Austin v. Brown - Docket No. 93-130 (6 Vet. App. 547 (1994))
MEDICAL RECORDS: Remand was necessary where it was unclear whether veteran whose service medical
records were lost was accorded benefit of doubt on material fact of his pneumonia and high fever in service.
-- Ussery v. Brown - Docket No. 93-696 (8 Vet. App. 64 (1995))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to obtain medical records from university as
requested by veteran on his claim for increased service-connected disability and for total service-connected
rating based on unemployability.
-- Leap v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-500 (2 Vet. App. 404 (1992))
MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT: Veteran was not entitled to reimbursement for hospitalizations.
-- Brooks v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1837 (3 Vet. App. 406 (1992))
78
Claim for reimbursement or payment of unauthorized medical expenses as result of private hospitalization
following possible acute infarction required remand.
-- Whipp v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1260 (3 Vet. App. 453 (1992))
MEDICAL TREATMENT: Regulation which required a showing of fault on part of Department of Veterans
Affairs in order for veteran to recover compensation for medical treatment provided was contrary to plain
language of statute providing for compensation.
-- Gardner v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-120 (1 Vet. App. 584 (1990))
MIGRAINE HEADACHE: BVA's denial of service connection for migraine headaches was supported by the
record.
-- Goga v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1585 (6 Vet. App. 328 (1993))
MILITARY LAW: BVA failed to comply with statutory mailing requirement for its decision, defect was not
cured, and, thus, veteran's notice of appeal was timely.
-- Leo v. Brown - Docket No. 93-844 (8 Vet. App. 28 (1995))
MISCONDUCT: Veteran's persistent misconduct rendered him ineligible for disability compensation.
-- Stringham v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1159 (8 Vet. App. 445 (1995))
MOOTNESS: Veteran's petition for writ of mandamus was moot.
-- Rife v. Brown - Docket No. 94-62 (7 Vet. App. 340 (1995))
MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE: Notice of mortgage foreclosure provided veteran-borrower did not violate
due process.
-- Buzinski v. Brown - Docket No. 92-887(6 Vet. App. 360 (1994))
MOTION PRACTICE: Motion to withdraw denial of a panel decision was not authorized by court rule.
-- Whitley v. Principi – Docket No. 99-609 (15 Vet. App., 219 (2001))
MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide proper analysis for determining
whether evidence of service connection for veteran's multiple sclerosis was new and material.
-- Schleis v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1459 (3 Vet. App. 415 (1992))
Veteran presented new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously disallowed claim for multiple
sclerosis.
-- Bielby v. Brown - Docket No. 92-653 (7 Vet. App. 260 (1994))
BVA finding that veteran's multiple sclerosis did not manifest itself within seven-year post-service presumptive
period for service connection was not supported by evidence.
-- Traut v. Brown - Docket No. 92-503 - (6 Vet. App. 462 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in basing its denial of service connection for MS on its own medical judgment
in lieu of independent medical evidence.
-- Talley v. Brown - Docket No. 92-359 (6 Vet. App. 72 (1993))
79
Veteran who did not serve for period of 90 days or more was not entitled to seven-year presumptive period of
multiple sclerosis.
-- Grose v. Brown - Docket No. 91-407 (4 Vet. App. 144 (1993))
Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its rejection of new and material medical evidence with
regard to veteran's claim for service connection for multiple sclerosis.
-- Barclay v. Brown - Docket No. 92-94 (4 Vet. App. 161 (1993))
MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION: Myocardial infarction is not a injury for purposes of service connection for
inactive duty training reservists.
-- Brooks v. Brown - Docket No. 92-522 (5 Vet. App. 484 (1993))
MYOFASCIAL PAIN SYNDROME: Veteran who did not serve for period of 90 days or more was not
entitled to seven-year presumptive period of multiple sclerosis.
-- Hoag v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1564 (4 Vet. App. 209 (1993))
NON-ATTORNEY FEES: Court will consider experience in setting hourly EAJA rate for non-attorney
practitioners.
--Abbey v. Principi – Docket No. 01-501 (E) (17 Vet. App., 282 (2003))
NON-SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY PENSION: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to articulate
with reasonable clarity its reasons or bases for denial of benefits.
-- Roberts v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-606 (2 Vet. App. 387 (1992))
NON-SERVICE-CONNECTED PENSIONS: New Philippine Scout who did not serve as commissioned
officer could not recover disability pension.
-- Laruan v. Principi - Docket No. 91-2 (4 Vet. App. 100 (1993))
Remand was required to enable veteran to submit to new physical examination to enable Board to accurately
identify percentage of disability attributable to each specific handicap.
-- Brown v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-505 (2 Vet. App. 444 (1992))
Board failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for its denial of non-service connected pension
to veteran.
-- Odiorne v. Principi - Docket No. 90-583 (3 Vet. App. 456 (1992))
Manio analysis dealing with reopening of claims does not apply to claims for pension benefits.
-- Abernathy v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1068 (3 Vet. App. 461 (1992))
NOTICE: Veteran's alleged nonreceipt of regional office decision did not, by itself, overcome presumption of
regularity of notice.
-- Mason v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1111 (8 Vet. App. 44 (1995))
VA committed procedural error by failing to adequately notify claimant that it was denying him service
connection for generalized anxiety disorder.
-- Best v. Brown - Docket No. 95-0030 (10 Vet. App. 322 (1997))
Presumption of regularity applied to regular mailing was rebutted.
80
-- Woods v. Gober – Docket No. 98-2095 (14 Vet. App., 214 (2001))
VCAA notice must be given before initial unfavorable decision on service-connection claim.
-- Pelegrini v. Principi – Docket No. 01-944 (18 Vet. App., 112 (2004))
NOTICE OF APPEAL: Notice of appeal was timely filed.
-- Perez v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-401 (2 Vet. App. 149 (1992))
Veteran's notice of appeal was timely filed.
-- Ryan v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-2156 (2 Vet. App. 568 (1992))
Notice of appeal from decision on reconsideration was timely filed.
-- Brienza v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-854(2 Vet. App. 584 (1992))
Veteran failed to file timely notice of appeal or timely motion for reconsideration, thus depriving Court of
jurisdiction over appeal.
-- Rich v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1464 (2 Vet. App. 586 (1992))
Court of Veterans Appeals cannot extend 120-day limit filing notice of appeal to the Court, even for showing of
good cause.
-- Dudley v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1876 (2 Vet. App. 602 (1992))
Appeals filed outside 120-day period for filing notice of appeal were untimely.
-- Dudley v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1876 (2 Vet. App. 602 (1992))
Rule requiring confirmatory written notice of appeal to be received by Court of Veterans Appeals within ten
days after facsimile filing was directive and jurisdictional.
-- Seals v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1697 (2 Vet. App. 190 (1992))
Veteran’s notice of appeal was untimely.
-- Bole v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-1266 (2 Vet. App. 376 (1992))
Notice of appeal filed by veteran was untimely.
-- Holiday v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1971 (2 Vet. App. 199 (1992))
Court could not conclude that veteran's notice of appeal was not timely received at court's former address.
-- Minshall v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-580 (2 Vet. App. 218 (1992))
Notice of appeal was untimely.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-2197 (2 Vet. App. 236 (1992))
Court could not accept correspondence addressed to court as timely filed notice of appeal.
-- Garillos v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1339 (2 Vet. App. 238 (1992))
Notice of appeal from decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals was timely.
-- Bosmay v. Derwinski-Docket No. 92-118(2 Vet. App. 306 (1992))
Notice of appeal was timely filed.
-- Ashley v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-386(2 Vet. App. 307 (1992))
81
Jurisdictional period for noting appeal could not be extended or commencement postponed despite veteran's
claim that he suffered from major mental illness causing inability to function as normal and care for his affairs.
-- Jones v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-58 (1 Vet. App. 210 (1991))
Case did not present extraordinary conditions necessary to warrant equitable tolling of 120-day time period for
filing notice appeal.
-- Fuquay v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-1878 (2 Vet. App. 373 (1992))
Notice of appeal from decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals was untimely.
-- Luskey v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1163 (2 Vet. App. 382 (1992))
Veteran timely filed notice of appeal.
-- Eads v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-867 (2 Vet. App. 3 (1990))
Veteran's notice of appeal was untimely.
-- Jennings v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1474 (2 Vet. App. 14 (1991))
Notices of appeals were untimely.
-- DiDonato v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-1033 (2 Vet. App. 42 (1991))
Doctrines of equitable tolling and equitable estoppel did not apply to give court jurisdiction where notice of
appeal was not timely filed.
-- Burton v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-886 (2 Vet. App. 49 (1992))
Veteran's notice of appeal was timely filed.
-- Ashley v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-386 (2 Vet. App. 62 (1992))
Principles of equitable tolling did not extend to what was at best a garden variety claim of excusable neglect in
filing untimely notice of appeal from Board of Veterans Appeals decision.
-- Schreiner v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1127 (2 Vet. App. 72 (1991))
Issue of time of receipt of notice of appeal was to be resolved in favor of veteran in absence of adequate record.
-- Grubbs v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-455 (2 Vet. App. 78 (1991))
Notice of appeal was timely received at court's former address.
-- Fletcher v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-25 (1 Vet. App. 394 (1991))
Veteran's notice of appeal from decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals was untimely.
-- Wilson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-356 (1 Vet. App. 139 (1991))
NOTICE OF DISAGREEMENT: Form filed by claimant expressing disagreement with decision made by
Director, Compensation and Pension Service, constituted valid notice of disagreement for Court's jurisdictional
purposes.
-- Malgapo v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-800 (1 Vet. App. 397 (1991))
Veteran's notice of disagreement encompassed regional office's failure to adjudicate his claim for total disability
rating based upon individual unemployability.
82
-- Isenbart v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1320 (7 Vet. App. 537 (1995))
Statement by veteran's representative was not valid NOD with respect to clear an unmistakable error claim.
-- Nacoste v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1138 (6 Vet. App. 439 (1994))
NOD filed with respect to increased disability rating, subsequent to NOD with respect to original rating, was
not valid NOD conferring jurisdiction on Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- AB v. Brown - Docket No. 91-211 (6 Vet. App. 35 (1993))
Notice of disagreement with regional office decision denying claim for service connection for post-traumatic
stress disorder after veteran submitted additional evidence following initial denial of claim did not confer
jurisdiction on Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- Baker v. Brown - Docket No. 94-148 (7 Vet. App. 194 (1994))
Veteran's letter to BVA expressing disagreement with its remand of his claims to RO was not a valid NOD for
Court of Veterans Appeals' jurisdictional purposes.
-- Sudranski v. Brown - Docket No. 90-451 (6 Vet. App. 27 (1993))
Veteran's notice of disagreement with regional office decision, on remand from BVA, did not confer
jurisdiction on Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- Caldwell v. Brown - Docket No. 91-662 (3 Vet. App. 3 (1991))
Widow failed to file valid notice of disagreement and thus Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction
over appeal.
-- Cates v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2098 (5 Vet. App. 399 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over an appeal where no valid notice of disagreement was filed
on or after November 18, 1988.
-- Balancio v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2023 (5 Vet. App. 175 (1993))
Court of Veterans Appeals lacked jurisdiction over claim of veteran who filed notice of disagreement prior to
statutory cutoff date for Jurisdictionally valid notices of disagreement.
-- Burke v. Brown - Docket No. 91-847 (5 Vet. App. 180 (1993))
Notice of disagreement was not valid for purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon the Court of Veterans Appeals
-- Adamski v. Brown - Docket No. 90-888 (5 Vet. App. 242 (1993))
There can be only one valid notice of disagreement as to a particular claim.
-- Hamilton et al v. Brown - Docket No. 90-470 (4 Vet. App. 528 (1993))
Notice of disagreement with decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is filed as of date it is received by
regional office.
-- Magula v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-195 (1 Vet. App. 76 (1990))
Statement of case filed by regional office did not constitute new adjudication and thus filing which expressed
disagreement with statement did not constitute valid notice of disagreement.
-- Orellana v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-134 (1 Vet. App. 339 (1991))
83
Court of Veterans Appeals does not have jurisdiction on basis of purported notice of disagreement which could
not have been filed until Board of Veterans' Appeals
review, which notice of disagreement was intended to generate, and ended in final decision.
-- Sundranski v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-451 (6 Vet. App. 27 (1993))
Veteran's substantive appeal form could serve as notice of disagreement sufficient to order jurisdiction upon
Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- Drenkhahn v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-5 (2 Vet. App. 29 (1991))
Valid notice disagreement was not filed and, thus, Court of Veterans Appeals did not have jurisdiction.
-- Sawyer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-22 (1 Vet. App. 130 (1991))
Veteran did not file jurisdiction conferring notice of disagreement (NOD).
-- Hudson v. Principi - Docket No. 91-96 (3 Vet. App. 467 (1992))
Notice of disagreement did not address rating issue.
-- Jarvis v. West – Docket No. 98-1347 (12 Vet App. 559 (1999))
NOD was sufficient to raise issue of secondary service connection.
-- Moore v. West – Docket No. 97-1117 (13 Vet. App. 69 (1999))
Expression of desire for appellate review not required in notice of disagreement (NOD).
-- Gallegos v. Gober - Docket No. 99-106(14 Vet. App., 50 (2000))
Statute repealing NOD jurisdictional requirement applies to Kelly v. Principi.
-- Kelly v. Principi – Docket No. 99-191 (15 Vet. App., 433 (2002))
Veteran’s letters to regional office (RO) constituted a valid notice of disagreement (NOD).
-- Anderson v. Principi – Docket No. 00-499 (18 Vet. App., 371 (2004))
NOTIFICATION: Board did not provide adequate reasons or bases to support its decision on denial
notification.
-- Ruffin v. Principi – Docket No. 00-970 (16 Vet. App., 12 (2002))
ONSET: Board of Veterans’ Appeals improperly required medical documentation to support veteran’s
testimony regarding in-service onset of condition.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1031 (10 Vet. App. 44 (1996))
OVERPAYMENT: Board of Veterans' Appeals decision denying waiver of recovery for overpayment of
death pension benefits was contrary to law.
-- Ridings v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1193 (6 Vet. App. 544 (1994))
Veteran who obtained VA pension benefits by fraud was not eligible for waiver of recovery of overpayment.
-- Brown v. Brown - Docket No. 94-348 (8 Vet. App. 40 (1995))
Veteran’s application for waiver of overpayment was timely.
-- Narron v. West – Docket No. 98-150 (13 Vet. App. 223 (1999))
84
Overpayment created by administrative error could not be basis of overpayment debt.
-- Erickson v. West – Docket No. 98-1542 (13 Vet. App. 495 (2000))
Denial of waiver of overpayment was not arbitrary or capricious.
-- Bruce v. Gober – Docket No. 99-413 (13 Vet. App., 565 (2000))
Board would not be ordered to cease and desist recoupment of alleged overpayment.
-- Bruce v. Principi – Docket No. 99-413 (15 Vet. App., 27 (2001))
Statute governing timeliness of a request for waiver of an overpayment construed.
-- Barger v. Principi – Docket No. 97-1775 (16 Vet. App., 132 (2002))
OVERPAYMENTS: Notice provisions of the VCAA do not apply to claims for waiver of pension
overpayment.
-- Lueras v. Principi – Docket No. 01-834 (18 Vet. App., 435 (2004))
PAIN: Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to address veteran's pain required remand of claim for increased
rating for service-connected disabilities.
-- Voyles v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1427 (5 Vet. App. 451 (1993))
-- Deluca v. Brown - Docket No 94-242 (8 Vet. App. 202 (1995))
-- Johnson v. Brown - Docket No. 95-173 (9 Vet. App. 7 (1996))
PANEL REVIEW: Rule permitting panel review of case decided by single judge did not permit panel review
of interlocutory order.
-- Sundranski v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-451 (6 Vet. App. 27 (1993))
Veteran failed to point to any error in fact or law warranting panel review of single judge decision of Court of
Veterans Appeals affirming denial of increased rating for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Dodge v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1743 (5 Vet. App. 6 (1993))
PANIC DISORDER: Board of Veterans' Appeals erred when it denied entitlement to increased rating for
panic disorder without adequately explaining why it discounted evidence favorable to claim.
-- Fisher v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1179 (2 Vet. App. 406 (1992))
PARTIES: Substitution motion of children of death benefits claimant was untimely filed more than one year
after her death.
-- Erro v. Brown - Docket No. 94-16 (8 Vet. App. 500 (1996))
PENSIONS: Veteran was not entitled to pension benefits as to his income exceeded maximum allowed by law
for pension purposes.
-- Johnson v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1333 (3 Vet. App. 534 (1992))
Remand rather than reversal was appropriate for Board of Veterans' Appeals decision that veteran was not
entitled to permanent and total disability rating for nonservice-connected pension.
-- Block v. Brown - Docket No. 92-0633 (7 Vet. App. 343 (1995))
85
Veteran's active service in military forces of Government of Philippines was not qualifying service entitling him
to non-service-connected pension.
-- Bravo v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-793 (1 Vet. App. 609 (1991))
Government was not estopped from denying veteran a non-service-connected pension.
-- Thompson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1314 (1 Vet. App. 610 (1991))
Adopted child is not a "child born of the marriage" for purpose of determining whether surviving spouse, whose
marriage to veteran did not take place prior to January 1, 1957 and whose marriage did not last one year or more
before death of veteran, qualified for pension.
-- Tapuro v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-527 (2 Vet. App. 154 (1992))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs had statutory authority to prescribe regulations establishing criteria for
determining eligibility for pensions based on combination of subjective and objective standards.
-- Talley v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-419 (2 Vet. App. 282 (1992))
Veteran's income was too high to enable him to receive non-service-connected disability Section 306 pension
benefits.
-- Cutler v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-435(2 Vet. App. 336 (1992))
Former service member in organized military forces of the Philippines from July 1943 to December 1946 did
not qualify for non-service-connected pension.
-- Solis v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-342 (2 Vet. App. 6 (1991))
Widow of man who served in organized guerrilla forces of the Philippines was not entitled to death pension
benefits.
-- Fonseca v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-9 (2 Vet. App. 54 (1992))
Department of Veterans Affairs did not violate any statutory, regulatory, or other duty by failing to notify
veteran when it would have been to his benefit to elect improved pension benefits.
-- Lewis v. Brown - Docket No. 94-469 (8 Vet. App. 287 (1995))
Income from total disability income provision of National Service Life Insurance was countable as income for
VA improved pension purposes.
-- Walker v. Brown - Docket No. 94-805 (8 Vet. App. 356 (1995))
Veteran was not entitled to special monthly pension.
-- Turco v. Brown - Docket No. 95-305 (9 Vet. App. 222 (1996))
Determinative factor for veteran's entitlement to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pension benefits is type
of service, not citizenship.
-- Fazon v. Brown - Docket No. 94-502 (9 Vet. App. 319 (1996))
Veteran's 1970 pension application contained no clear intent to request service connection that would require
his pension claim to be considered as one for disability compensation.
-- Stewart v. Brown - Docket No. 94-622 (9 Vet. App. 458 (1996))
Veteran who served on active duty until February 1962, but who did not serve in the Republic of Vietnam, did
not meet basic eligibility requirement for nonservice-connected benefits.
-- Fischer v. West – Docket No. 96-1420 (11 Vet. App. 121 (1998))
86
Lack of explanation required remand of denial of pension benefits.
-- Pacheco v. West – Docket No. 97-2313 (12 Vet. App. 36 (1998))
Rent from Indian land excludable from income if the land is “submarginal”
-- Springer v. West – Docket No. 98-884 (13 Vet. App. 431 (2000))
Iranian hostage situation was not a “period of was” for purpose of pension eligibility.
-- Mason v. Principi – Docket No. 01-45 (16 Vet. App., 129 (2002))
Regulation excluding home school programs from dependent benefits was invalid.
-- Theiss v. Principi – Docket No. 01-0906 (18 Vet. App., 204 (2004))
PENSION CLAIMS: Department of Veterans Affairs was not obligated to treat veteran’s pension application
as claim for disability compensation.
-- Stewart v. Brown - Docket No. 94-622 (10 Vet. App. 15 (1997))
PEPTIC ULCER: Failure to provide analysis of probative value of evidence which would support claim for
service connection for bleeding peptic ulcer as cause of veteran’s death warranted remand.
-- Quiamco v. Brown - Docket No. 92-606 (6 Vet. App. 304 (1994))
PHILIPPINE SCOUTS: Issue of whether statute pertaining to persons who served in Philippine Scouts was
unconstitutional was not ripe for review.
-- Rosalinas v. Brown - Docket No. 91-371 (5 Vet. App. 1 (1993))
PLEADING: Board of Veterans Appeals was on notice that claimant requested rating board decision denying
service connection be reviewed.
-- Myers v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-221 (1 Vet. App. 127 (1991))
POST-SERVICE ACCIDENT: Finding by Board of Veterans Appeals that post-service fall probably caused
claimant's arthritic condition was clearly erroneous.
-- Spencer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1360 (4 Vet. App. 283 (1993))
POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER: Veteran was not entitled to have post-traumatic stress disorder
claim reopened.
-- Baritsky v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1549 (4 Vet. App. 41 (1993))
BVA was not free to reject, based on unsubstantiated medical conclusion medical diagnosis of record finding
that veteran's stressors were sufficient to support post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis.
-- West v. Brown - Docket No. 92-890 (7 Vet. App. 70 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to address, analyze, and reconcile all objective medical evidence of record in
denying increased rating for service-connection post-traumatic stress disorder claim.
-- Romero v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1467 (6 Vet. App. 311 (1993))
Veteran failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously disallowed claim for
post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Moncrief v. Brown - Docket No. 92-246 (6 Vet. App. 339 (1993))
87
BVA failed to give adequate reasons or bases for rejecting lay testimony corroborating veteran's testimony
regarding in-service stressors.
-- Doran v. Brown - Docket No. 93-228 (6 Vet. App. 283 (1994))
Denial of service-connection for post-traumatic stress disorder was not clearly erroneous.
-- Irby v. Brown - Docket No. 93-350 (6 Vet. App. 132 (1994))
Breach of statutory duty to assist veteran in developing facts pertinent to his well-grounded claim for service
connection for post-traumatic stress disorder warranted remand.
-- Zarycki v. Brown - Docket No. 92-976 (6 Vet. App. 91 (1993))
Board failed to comply with its statutory duty to provide adequate bases for its conclusions denying service
connection for post-traumatic stress.
-- Ashley v. Brown - Docket No. 91-386 (6 Vet. App. 52 (1993))
Veteran's claim of post-traumatic stress disorder was not new claim, which would allow new notice of
disagreement, which raised in connection with previously reduced rating for depressive neurosis.
--Ephraim v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1177 (5 Vet. App. 549 (1993))
The Board of Veterans' Appeals breached its duty to assist veteran by not conducting examination to determine
degree that his functional impairment was attributable to post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Waddell v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2034 (5 Vet. App. 454 (1993))
Evidence did not show presence of post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Burger v. Brown - Docket No. 91-935 (5 Vet. App. 340 (1993))
Remand of denial of disability rating for greater than 30% for veteran's post-traumatic stress disorder was
warranted to allow BVA to explain why veteran's symptoms did not satisfy criteria for higher rating.
-- McGhee v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1595 (5 Vet. App. 441 (1993))
Veteran was not entitled to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Swann v. Brown - Docket No. 92-370 (5 Vet. App. 229 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statements of reasons or bases for rejecting statements by
medical personnel diagnosing veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Williams v. Brown - Docket No. 91-901 (4 Vet. App. 270 (1993))
Remand was required on veteran's claim of post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Booth v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1099 (4 Vet. App. 280 (1993))
Board did not commit legal or factual error in denial of claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder.
-- Autry v. Brown - Docket No. 91-854 (4 Vet. App. 337 (1993))
Denial of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder had to be vacated due to failure of Board of
Veterans' Appeals to address all issues.
-- Maynard v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1813 (4 Vet. App. 341 (1993))
88
Evidence supported determination of Board of Veterans Appeals that claimant was not entitled to service
connection for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Wood v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-50 (1 Vet. App. 190 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide reasons or bases for its refusal to grant
further psychiatric examination.
-- Perez v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-162 (2 Vet. App. 562 (1992))
Board's denial of benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder was plausible and could not be overturned.
-- Wilson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-169 (2 Vet. App. 614 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to state why it rejected medical opinions which it
sought with regard to claim for service connected post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Hamilton v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-470 (2 Vet. App. 671 (1992))
Remand was required on veteran's claim.
-- Mee v. Brown - Docket No. 91-219 (4 Vet. App. 220 (1993))
Veteran was not entitled to earlier effective date for his 100% disability for service-connected post-traumatic
stress disorder.
-- Padgett v. Brown - Docket No. 91-992 (4 Vet. App. 247 (1993))
Board of Veteran's Appeals erred in denying claim without considering regulation governing post-service
diagnosis of disease.
-- Cosman v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1009 (3 Vet. App. 503 (1992))
Statute providing that no independent evidence of stressor was necessary if evidence showed that veteran was in
combat with enemy and claimed stressor was related to combat was inapplicable to veteran's claim for
compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Wood v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-50 (1 Vet. App. 406 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to adequately consider and analyze evidence presented on a serviceconnected post-traumatic stress disorder claim, requiring remand.
-- Cousino v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-995 (1 Vet. App. 536 (1991))
Board of Veterans's Appeals did not commit factual or legal error warranting reversal of decision denying
increased rating for post traumatic stress disorder.
-- Seliz v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-988 (2 Vet. App. 299 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to service connect disability compensation for post-traumatic stress order.
-- Brownrigg v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1120 (3 Vet. App. 244( 1992))
Effects of post-traumatic stress disorder on veteran's social and industrial adaptability were not clearly
differentiated from other non-service connected effects.
-- Begin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-804 (3 Vet. App. 257 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to include analysis of credibility or probative value
of evidence submitted in support of claim for service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder.
89
-- Culver v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-960 (3 Vet. App. 292 (1992))
Evidence in record supported finding that veteran did not suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Neely v. Derwinski - Docket No. 1539 (3 Vet. App. 357 (1992))
Remand was required to clarify decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals regarding veteran's claim for
service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Collins v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1237 (3 Vet. App. 6 (1991))
Remand was required of case involving post-traumatic stress disorder with panic disorder.
-- Hayes v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1306 (5 Vet. App. 60 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals denial of increased rating for post-traumatic stress disorder was clearly erroneous.
-- Crandell v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1046 (3 Vet. App. 33 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide statement of reasons or bases for its
conclusion that veteran was not unemployable solely as result of his service-connected post-traumatic stress
disorder.
-- Hanson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-675 (1 Vet. App. 512 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to give adequate reasons or bases for denial of service-connected disability
compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Trytek v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1502 (3 Vet. App. 153 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for denial of increased
rating for service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Jones v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-322 (3 Vet. App. 158 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for denial of increased
rating for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Tripp v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-89 (3 Vet. App. 173 (1992))
Post traumatic stress disorder was not psychotic disorder as required for veteran to obtain service connection as
single entity for personality disorder superimposed with service-connected mental condition.
-- Carpenter v. Brown - Docket No. 94-292 (8 Vet. App. 240 (1995))
Veteran was not entitled to earlier date of service connection for post traumatic stress disorder.
-- Hanson v. Brown - Docket No. 95-367 (9 Vet. App. 29 (1996))
Amendments adding combat action ribbon to list of decorations considered to be conclusive evidence of inservice stressor applied retroactively.
-- Marcoux v. Brown - Docket No. 95-52 (9 Vet. App. 289 (1996))
Credible supporting evidence of actual occurrence of in-service stressor required for noncombat veteran to
establish service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder could not consist solely of after-the-fact medical
nexus evidence.
-- Moreau v. Brown - Docket No. 94-883 (9 Vet. App. 389 (1996))
90
Ninety-day duty requirement for presumption of service connection was not irrational.
-- Robinson v. Brown - Docket No. 95-39 (9 Vet. App. 398 (1996))
Amendments establishing more liberal method of demonstrating in-service stressor applied retroactively to
veteran.
-- Marcoux v. Brown - Docket No. 95-52 (10 Vet. App. 3 (1996))
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS: Veteran entered service with pre-existing ulcer and thus was not entitled to
disability for duodenal ulcer.
-- Bagby v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-31 (1 Vet. App. 225 (1991))
PREEXISTING INJURY: Veteran was not entitled to service connection for aggravation of preexisting left
knee injury.
-- Beverly v. Brown - Docket No. 94-839 (9 Vet. app. 402 (1996))
PRESUMPTION OF SOUNDNESS: Evidence before Board of Veterans' Appeals did not rebut presumption
of soundness upon entry in service.
-- Parker v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-284 (1 Vet. App. 522 (1991))
PRISONER OF WAR: Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide adequate reasons for denial of
prisoner of war status warranted remand.
-- Young v. Brown - Docket No. 91-90 (4 Vet. App. 106 (1993))
Failure to apply former POW presumption sections to prove that veteran should have been granted service
connection was not clear and unmistakable error.
-- Allin v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1565 (6 Vet. App. 207 (1994))
Prisoner of war presented well grounded claim for entitlement to service connection for intestinal parasites.
-- Peña v. Brown - Docket No. 91-889 (5 Vet. App. 279 (1993))
Record supported finding that veteran did not have prisoner of war (POW) status during World War II.
-- Manibog v. Brown - Docket No. 95-26 (8 Vet. App. 465 (1996))
PRISONERS OF WAR: Board erred in considering claim for recognition of prisoner of war status.
-- Thompson v. Gober – Docket No. 99-515 (14 Vet. App., 187 (2001))
PRIVATE HOSPITAL CARE: BVA erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction veteran's appeal of his claim
for reimbursement or payment of costs of private hospitalization based on prior authorization.
-- Similes v. Brown - Docket No. 93-490 (6 Vet App. 555 (1994))
PROCEDURE: Requirements stated for Board of Veterans' Appeals to address question not addressed by
regional office.
-- Bernard v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1082 (4 Vet. App. 384 (1993))
Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision would be vacated and remanded based on inadequate reasons or bases for
its decision.
-- Zink v. Brown - Docket No. 96-354 (10 Vet. App. 258 (1997))
91
Certificate of service which was “dated” the day following receipt and filing did not satisfy service rules which
require service “at or before the time of filing.”
-- Gantt v. West – Docket No. 97-2252 (11 Vet. App. 264 (1998))
PROHIBITION: Veteran failed to show extraordinary circumstances and lack of adequate alternative means of
relief as required for extraordinary relief under All Writs Act.
-- Steffen v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1072 (8 Vet. App. 142 (1995))
PROOF OF SERVICE: Department of Veterans Affairs was bound by certification from Department of
Army that veteran did not have service in United States Army Forces.
-- Duro v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1005 (2 Vet. App. 530 (1992))
PROSTATE CANCER: Veteran failed to establish that his claim that negligent treatment by VA medical
center caused or contributed to his prostate cancer was well grounded.
-- Boeck v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1417 (6 Vet. App. 14 (1993))
PSYCHIATRIC DISABILITY: Board of Veterans' Appeals had to make determination as to credibility of
veteran's new evidence that he was treated for psychosis in service in Vietnam.
-- Triplette v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1394 (4 Vet. App. 45 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to explain adequately basis for finding that alcohol was due to veteran's own
willful misconduct.
-- Genous v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1433 (5 Vet. App. 422 (1993))
Service connection under rubric of mental unsoundness presumed to be result of suicide or bona fide attempt
may be granted only where there is present service connectable disability and all requirements for service
connection are established.
-- Elkins v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1130 (8 Vet. App. 391 (1995))
PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER: BVA's failure to follow VA regulation regarding post-service initial diagnosis
of disease, in denying service connection for psychiatric disorder warranted remand.
-- Nash v. Brown - Docket No. 91-613 (6 Vet. App. 1 (1993))
Veteran's pre-existing neuropsychiatric condition was not aggravated during service.
-- Corry v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1330 (3 Vet. App. 231 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals was required to reopen previously denied claim for service-connected disability
compensation for psychiatric disorder.
-- Oredson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1700 (4 Vet. App. 450 (1993))
Veteran presented new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously disallowed claim for acquired
psychiatric disorder.
-- Taylor v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1944 (4 Vet. App. 473 (1993))
Veteran submitted well-grounded claim for chronic acquired psychiatric disability triggering duty to assist.
-- King v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1457 (4 Vet. App. 519 (1993))
92
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for decision to award veteran an
increase from 30% to only 50% in service connected disability rating.
-- Shoemaker v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1055 (3 Vet. App. 248 (1992))
Denial of service connection for psychiatric disorder was clearly erroneous.
-- Chisem v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1540 (3 Vet. App. 322 (1992))
Record contained plausible basis for decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals denying veteran entitlement to
earlier effective date for 100% disability rating for service connected psychiatric disorder.
-- Gonzales-Soto v. Principi - Docket No. 91-183 (3 Vet. App. 527 (1993))
Decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals denying service connection for psychiatric disorder failed to properly
analyze evidence supporting claim that veteran was hospitalized and received psychiatric treatment before
separation from service
-- Triplette v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1394 (4 Vet. App. 45 (1993))
Reopening of previously disallowed claim for service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder was
warranted.
-- Chisholm v. Principi - Docket No. 91-257 (3 Vet. App. 420 (1992))
Pursuant to duty to assist, contemporaneous examination of veteran claiming service connection for psychiatric
disorder should have been ordered specifically addressing that issue. -- Wisch v. Brown
-- Docket No. 94-403 (8 Vet. App. 139 (1995))
Regulation providing that certain personality disorders are not diseases or injuries within meaning of veterans'
benefits law is valid.
-- Winn v. Brown - Docket No. 93-802 (8 Vet. App. 510 (1996))
PSYCHOSIS: Veteran was not entitled to service connection for compensation for his psychosis.
-- Soyini v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-178 (1 Vet. App. 540 (1991))
Veteran failed to prove service-connected psychosis.
-- Degmetich v. Brown - Docket No. 94-444 (8 Vet. App. 208 (1995))
PUBLIC RECORDS: Upon request to seal records before the Court of Veterans' Appeals, Court is required to
conduct examination of each case and each document for which protection is sought and balance conflicting
interests presented.
-- Pritchett v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1060 (2 Vet. App. 116 (1992))
PULMONARY EMPHYSEMA: Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in failing to consider evidence which
strongly suggested that veteran was entitled to 60% scheduler disability rating for pulmonary emphysema.
-- South v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-574 (3 Vet. App. 121 (1992))
PULMONARY TUBERCULOSIS: Veteran failed to present new and material evidence warranting
reopening of previously denied claim for service connection for pulmonary tuberculosis and arthritis.
-- Titular v. Brown - Docket No. 92-131 (6 Vet. App. 350 (1993))
PYRAMIDING OF BENEFITS: Rating schedule could not be employed to compensate veteran twice for
same symptomatology.
93
-- Brady v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1497 (4 Vet. App. 203 (1993))
RADIATION: Veteran's exposure to radiation from work on Manhattan Project did not support presumptive
service connection.
-- Lasovick v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1591 (6 Vet. App. 14 (1994))
RADIATION EXPOSURE: Although Board of Veterans' Appeals decision was not erroneous, veteran was
entitled to readjudication of bladder cancer claim in light to Veterans' Radiation Exposure Act.
-- Farris v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1092 (4 Vet. App. 6 (1993))
Additional briefing was required to determine whether Secretary of Veterans Affairs had statutory authority to
establish exclusive adjudication process for determining direct service connection for diseases based on
radiation exposure.
-- Lasovick v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1591 (5 Vet. App. 334 (1993))
Veteran was entitled to de novo review of his claim brought pursuant to the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation
Exposure Compensation Standards Act.
-- Sawyer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-22 (1 Vet. App. 130 (1991))
Veteran could only establish service connection on direct basis based on radiation exposure if disability was
enumerated on list of radiogenic diseases.
-- Combee v. Principi - Docket No. 91-786 (4 Vet. App. 78 (1993))
RADIOGENIC DISEASE: VA adjudication procedures manual requiring Defense Nuclear Agency
documentation as sole means to verify radiation risk activity was invalid.
-- Earle v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1073 (6 Vet. App. 558 (1994))
RATINGS: Veteran was entitled to 60 percent rating for traumatic arteriovenous aneurysm.
-- Bentley v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-70 (1 Vet. App. 28 (1990))
Veteran who had been granted service connection (zero percent) for chronic condition associated with porphyria
was not entitled to increased rating.
-- Dougharity v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-80 (1 Vet. App. 233 (1991))
Reduction of veteran's rating for post-traumatic stress disorder was arbitrary and capricious.
-- Lehman v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-162 (1 Vet. App. 339 (1991))
Denial of veteran's request to increase disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder from 30 to 50 percent
was not clearly erroneous.
-- Hillyard v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-181 (1 Vet. App. 349 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals was precluded from assigning extraschedular rating for veteran's left mandible
condition in first instance.
-- Floyd v. Brown - Docket No. 92-970 (9 Vet. App. 88 (1996))
Board of Veterans’ Appeals, not Court of Veterans Appeals, had to determine whether amendments to rating
schedule were favorable to veteran.
-- Dudnick v. Brown - Docket No. 96-327 (10 Vet. App. 79 (1997))
94
Enlarged heart, however slight, was only requirement for 30% rating criteria under diagnostic code for
rheumatic heart disease.
-- Drosky v. Brown - Docket No. 96-573 (10 Vet. App. 251 (1997))
Veteran’s clear and unmistakable error claim challenging termination of his disability benefits did not survive
his death.
-- Haines v. Gober - Docket No. 97-589 (10 Vet. App. 446 (1997))
Veteran was not entitled to a rate increase for his service-connected otomycosis of the ear rated at 0% disabling.
-- Bruce v. West – Docket No. 96-353 (11 Vet. App. 405 (1998))
Denial of increased rating for hearing loss remanded for readjudication.
-- Acevedo-Escobar v. West – Docket No. 97-1041 (12 Vet. App. 9 (1998))
BVA erred in denying increased rating for veteran’s migraine headaches.
-- Fenderson v. West – Docket No. 96-947 (12 Vet. App. 119 (1999))
Non-service-connected hearing loss in one ear could not be considered in rating.
-- Boyer v. West – Docket No. 97-1194 (12 Vet. App. 142 (1999))
Reduction of rating for psychoneurotic disorder not clear and unmistakable error.
-- Greyzck v, West – Docket No. 97-2204 (12 Vet App. 288 (1999))
Evidence of unemployability raised informal TDIU claims.
-- Norris v. West – Docket No. 97-347 (12 Vet. App. 413 (1999))
Veteran was entitled to a rating of total disability based on unemployability (TDIU).
-- Colayong v. West – 97-1178 (12 Vet. App. 524 (1999))
Failure to assign 40% rating for low back disability was contrary to law.
-- Powell v. West – 98-1675 (13 vet. App. 31 (1999))
Regulations did not preclude rating reduction justified by economic evidence.
-- Faust v. West – 98-100 (13 Vet. App. 342 (2000)
Board rating decision lacked adequate reasons and bases.
-- Parker v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1889 (15 Vet. App., 407 (2002))
Regulation setting for general rating formula for mental disorders construed.
-- Mauerhan v. Principi – Docket No. 01-468 (16 Vet. App., 436 (2002))
Pre-1999 Diagnostic Code for tinnitus conflicted with disability compensation statute.
-- Wanner v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1888, 01-1012 (17 Vet. App., 4 (2003))
Board did not offer adequate support for non-referral decision.
-- Brambley v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1156 (17 Vet. App., 20 (2003))
Secretary’s interpretation of Diagnostic Code was invalid.
95
-- Mariano v. Principi – Docket No. 01-467 (17 Vat. App., 305(2003))
Veterans was entitled to separate ratings for disabilities of Muscle Groups I & II.
-- Jones v. Principi – Docket No. 01-291 (18 Vet. App., 248 (2004))
Denial of 100% paired organ rating residuals of right-eye injury was not clearly erroneous.
-- DeBeaord v. Principi – Docket No. 02-793 (18 Vet. App., 357 (2004))
Board’s statement of reasons and basis for denying higher rating was inadequate.
-- Pierce v. Principi – Docket No. 03-0506 (18 Vet. App., 440 (2004))1
RATING CRITERIA: Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) used current schedule rating criteria in denying
veteran's claim for increased evaluation for service-connection post-traumatic
stress disorder.
-- Clark v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1466 (2 Vet. App. 166 (1992))
RATING REDUCTION: Board of Veterans' Appeals erred prejudicially in placing burden on veteran to
demonstrate that he was entitled to retain rating.
-- Brown v. Brown - Docket No. 92-325 (5 Vet. App. 413 (1993))
REASONS OR BASES: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide written statement of reasons or bases
for its findings that veteran's ear disorder was not service connected.
-- Sibley v. Principi - Docket No. 90-553 (4 Vet. App. 37 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for denial of pulmonary
tuberculosis claim.
-- Goodsell v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1074 (5 Vet. App. 36 (1993))
Board of Veterans Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its rejection of lay testimony
supporting claim of service connection for Meniere's syndrome.
-- Horowitz v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1565 (5 Vet. App. 217 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to adequately explain criteria used to determine veteran failed to show inservice worsening of pre-existing right eye condition.
-- Browder v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1209 (5 Vet. App. 268 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for its denial of service
connection for sinusitis.
-- Dunnagan v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-849 (2 Vet. App. 557 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans Appeals to discuss reasons or bases for its conclusion that
veteran's lumbar stenosis was not a condition or result of service connected back injury.
-- Cosentino v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-990(2 Vet. App. 275 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons and bases for denial of service
connection for hearing loss and tinnitus.
-- Mattson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-797 (2 Vet. App. 643 (1992))
96
Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its determinations.
-- Nagler v. Principi - Docket No. 91-942 (3 Vet. App. 488 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to give reasons or bases for decision to deny claim that prior denials of
service connection for skin disorder were based on error.
-- Stephens v. Principi - Docket No. 91-87 (3 Vet. App. 513 (1992))
Board failed to provide written statement of reasons or bases for its implicit rejection of opinions of private
physician and vocational consultant with respect to claim of total disability and unemployability.
-- Ferazzoli v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1308 (4 Vet. App. 152 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for its denial of entitlement
to permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes.
-- Messer v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1919 (4 Vet. App. 185 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of its reasons or bases for denial of service
connected disability compensation for psychiatric disorder.
-- Baker v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-736 (2 Vet. App. 315 (1992))
RECONSIDERATION: Board of Veterans' Appeals was required to proceed in case under reconsideration as
though initial panel decision had never been entered by conducting de novo review.
-- Boyer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-81 (1 Vet. App. 531 (1991))
Reconsideration with respect to allegations of new evidence for denial of motion for reconsideration of
evidence had to meet requirements for new and material evidence for reopening disallowed claim.
-- Romero v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1155 (6 Vet. App. 410 (1994))
Court of Veterans Appeals would not exercise jurisdiction over appeal as motion for reconsideration was based
on "material error," rather than new evidence or changed circumstances.
-- Neves v. Brown - Docket No. 93-270 (6 Vet. App. 177 (1993))
In interest of judicial economy, appeal in Court of Veterans Appeals would be permitted proceed on record that
was before Board at time of its decision, while question of Court's jurisdiction over denial of motion for
reconsideration was resolved.
-- Patterson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1668 (2 Vet. App. 164 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals impermissibly revised facts on reconsideration to justify previous award of 50%
disability rating for anxiety reaction.
-- Sabol v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1123 (2 Vet. App. 228 (1992))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs was not entitled to reconsideration of Court of Veterans Appeals decision on the
ground that Court impermissibly substituted its judgment for that of the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
-- Lowe v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-107 (3 Vet. App. 227 (1992))
RECORD ON APPEAL: Medical records not contained in record before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
could not be included in record on appeal to Court of Veterans Appeals.
-- Rogozinski v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-11 (1 Vet. App. 19 (1990))
97
Statements of veteran's mother and physicians would be excluded from record as they were not before BVA
when it rendered its decision.
-- Stead v. Brown - Docket No. 93-143 (5 Vet. App. 366 (1993))
RECORD CORRECTION: Statute did not prohibit correction of rating decision to indicate correct thigh
which was injured by gunshot wound.
--Gifford v. Brown - Docket No. 93-246 (6 Vet. App. 269 (1994))
RECORDS: Claimant was not entitled to have records of appeal before Court of Veterans Appeals sealed.
-- Stam v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-455 (1 Vet. App. 317 (1991))
RECOUPMENT: Statute entitled Department of Veterans Affairs to recoup gross amount of veteran's
readjustment pay when she received disability compensation.
-- Sabonis v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1123 (6 Vet. App. 426 (1994))
RECOUPMENT OR OVERPAYMENT: Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in its denial of waiver of
recoupment of overpayment of benefits.
-- Franklin v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2002 (5 Vet. App. 190 (1993))
RECUSAL: Controversy regarding recusal of judge was moot by department a action complying with court's
order, leaving nothing for judge's discretion.
-- Aronson v. Brown - Docket No. 92-561 (7 Vet. App. 153 (1994))
REHABILITATION: Secretary must file memorandum addressing issue of whether regulatory requirement
that veteran's service-connected disability contribute to his employment handicap was valid exercise of its rulemaking authority.
-- Davenport v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1665 (6 Vet. App. 430 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals had plausible basis for denial of rehabilitation benefits, since veteran's inability to
perform his job was primarily because of his nonservice-connected disabilities, rather than any aggravation of
his service connected condition.
-- Wilson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2085 (7 Vet. App. 542 (1995))
A regulation was unlawful in limiting a veteran's right to be inducted retroactively into a vocational
rehabilitation program when he was receiving educational benefits under another VA program.
-- Bernier v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1065 (7 Vet. App. 434 (1995))
Department of Veterans Affairs' regulation imposing causal nexus requirement to obtain eligibility for
vocational rehabilitation training benefits exceeded VA's statutory authority.
-- Davenport v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1665 (7 Vet. App. 476 (1995))
Department of Veterans Affairs was not obliged to pay for expenses veteran incurred during period when he
was in interrupted status and was not authorized for training.
-- McRae v. Brown - Docket No. 92-828 (9 Vet. App. 229 (1996))
Board of Veterans' Appeals decision to deny additional vocational rehabilitation benefits because veteran's
vocational goals of employment in music industry were infeasible was not arbitrary and capricious or abuse of
discretion.
98
-- Kandik v. Brown - Docket No. 93-153 (9 Vet. App. 434 (1996))
BVA decision denying entitlement to vocational rehabilitation training was inadequate and required remand.
-- Wing v. West – Docket No. 96-94 (11 Vet. App. 98 (1998))
REIMBURSEMENT: Claim for reimbursement of medical expenses was not well grounded. - -- Parker v.
Brown - Docket No. 93-201 (7 Vet. App. 116 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or basis for its decision to deny reimbursement
for by-pass operation performed at non-VA facility.
-- Cotton v. Brown - Docket No. 93-694 (7 Vet. App. 325 (1994))
REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROSTHESIS: Veteran was not entitled to reimbursement from Department of
Veterans Affairs for costs of prosthetic appliances which he had purchased without obtaining previous
authorization.
-- Verna v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1310 (1 Vet. App. 615 (1991))
REMAND: Remand was required to enable Board of Veteran's Appeals to explain basis for changing finding
of industrial impairment to "considerable" from "severe".
-- Fletcher v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-25 (1 Vet. App. 394 (1991))
Order on consent remanding case was a mandate of Court of Veterans Appeals which Board of Veterans'
Appeals was obligated to follow.
-- Harris v. Brown - Docket No. 94-293 (7 Vet. App. 547 (1995))
Since Court of Veterans Appeals was unable to determine from record reason for denial of claim for disability
rating for neurological deficits, remand was required.
-- Bierman v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1444 (6 Vet. App. 125 (1994))
BVA's failure to give reasons for its decision that referral to VA officials of veteran's request for extra-scheduler
consideration of his claim for increased disability rating was inappropriate and warranted remand.
-- Kellar v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1223 (6 Vet. App. 157 (1994))
Remand of claim was required since it could not be determined whether claim was properly reopened.
-- Wallace v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1518 (2 Vet. App. 537 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide reasons or bases for its decision to deny
earlier effective date for choroidal gyrate atrophy.
-- Meeks v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1396 (5 Vet. App. 284 (1993))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide reasons for its conclusion that veteran
was not entitled to benefit of doubt with regard to back injury claim.
-- Gilbert v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-53 (1 Vet. App. 49 (1990))
Supplemental decision filed by Board of Veterans Appeals on remand provided ample reasons for denial of
service connection.
-- Gilbert v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-53 (1 Vet. App. 61 (1991))
99
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to articulate reasons or bases for apparent dismissal
of evidence of record favorable to veteran.
-- Willis v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-27 (1 Vet. App. 63 (1990))
Board of Veterans' Affairs was required to either provide reasons for conclusion that claimant filed to submit
well-grounded claim or to assist claimant in gathering records and determine whether relationship between
earlier cancer and fatal cancer existed.
-- Murphy v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-107 (1 Vet. App. 78 (1990))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans Appeals to consider veteran's claim that problems associated
with right knee were related to service connected injury to left knee.
-- Payne v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-172 (1 Vet. App. 85 (1990))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide reasons or bases for its denial of benefits
and also denial of claim that veteran was entitled to benefit of doubt.
-- Sammarco v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-200 (1 Vet. App. 111 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide adequate explanation for dismissal of
evidence favorable to veteran's claim.
-- Wilson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-356 (1 Vet. App. 139 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to include reasons or bases adequate to explain its
findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to veteran's claim for disability rating for post-traumatic
stress disorder.
-- Ohland v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-251 (1 Vet. App. 147 (1991))
Remand to Board of Veterans' Appeals was required to enable Board to evaluate which part of mental disability
was service connected.
-- Webster v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-268 (1 Vet. App. 155 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide reasons or bases for its findings and
conclusions regarding claim for total disability rating.
-- Hatlestad v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-103 (1 Vet. App. 164 (1991))
Board failed to strictly comply with statutory mandate requiring it to include reasons or bases supporting its
findings and conclusions.
-- Fallo v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-85 (1 Vet. App. 175 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to address ambiguities between its prior decision
and evidence of record on widow's claim for accrued benefits.
-- Hayes v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-168 (1 Vet. App. 186(1991))
Any attempt by the Board of Veterans' Appeals to order reconsideration of Board decision after notice of appeal
has been timely filed with Court of Veterans appeals is null and void
unless court first orders remand.
-- Cerullo v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-2 (1 Vet. App. 195 (1991))
100
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to consider presumption of service connection for
aggravation of pre-existing injury.
-- Browder v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-44 (1 Vet. App. 204 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to assess new and material evidence in context of
all other evidence in case to determine whether new evidence filled evidentiary gap with regard to continuity of
symptomatology.
-- Jones v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-58 (1 Vet. App. 210 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide statement of reasons or bases for
conclusion that claimant was not entitled to nonservice connected pension benefits.
-- Hyder v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-254 (1 Vet. App. 221 (1991))
Remand to Board of Veterans' Appeals was required to enable Board to consider all evidence, both old and new.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket 90-235 (1 Vet. App. 235 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide reasons or bases for denial of claim for
total disability rating.
-- Goodman v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-474 (1 Vet. App. 280 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide statement of reasons or bases for its
reduction of veteran's disability compensation rating for service connected psychiatric disability.
-- Peyton v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-613 (1 Vet. App. 282 (1991))
Decision by Board of Veterans' Appeals was to be remanded given Board's failure to properly apply relevant
laws and regulations.
-- Barnes v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-493 (1 Vet. App. 289 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to further develop facts in connection with claim
for service connection for atypical depression and schizoaffective disorder.
-- EF v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-533 (1 Vet. App. 324 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide adequate reasons or bases for its
determination not to grant increase in disability for psychiatric disorder and intervertebral disk syndrome.
-- Ferraro v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-444 (1 Vet. App. 326 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to state reasons or bases for its findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
-- O'Hare v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-350 (1 Vet. App. 365 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board to consider veteran's challenge to earlier Board's decision which severed
his benefits.
-- Oppenhemer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-313 (1 Vet. App. 370 (1991))
Remand was required where Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate decisional document which
could be reviewed by Court.
-- Begiers v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1592 (2 Vet. App. 583 (1992))
Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to consider documents which were before it required remand.
101
-- Bell v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1749 (2 Vet. App. 611 (1992))
Case was sufficiently developed for Court of Veterans Appeals to reverse decision which was based on
invalidated regulation and remand for appropriate rating.
-- Hartman v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-383 (2 Vet. App. 623 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board to include reasons or bases for its decision that veteran's foot condition
was not service connected.
-- Moore v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-41 (1 Vet. App. 401 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board to provide necessary reasons or bases to explain its denial of claim for
service connection for pes planus and to consider benefit of doubt doctrine.
-- Townsend v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-456 (1 Vet. App. 408 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board to determine whether venous thrombosis was service-connected.
-- Martin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-343 (1 Vet. App. 411 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veteran's Appeals to provide reasons or bases for its conclusions that
veteran was entitled to pension benefits.
-- Collier v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-839 (1 Vet. App. 413 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to consider veteran's claim or unemployability.
-- Snow v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-432 (1 Vet. App. 417 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to reconsider veteran's claim for service connection
for residuals of alleged left shoulder injury.
-- Godwin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-654 (1 Vet. App. 419 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to consider veteran's limitation of motion due to
pain in determining his claim for increases rating for rheumatoid arthritis.
-- Ferguson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-472 (1 Vet. App. 428 (1991))
Record on issue of whether veteran's right knee condition was secondary to service-connected flat feet was
inadequate, requiring remand.
--Dyess v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-548 (1 Vet. App. 448 (1991))
Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide reasons for bases for its conclusion that veteran who suffered
from psychiatric disorder was employable warranted remand.
-- Washington v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-142 (1 Vet. App. 459 (1991))
Remand for readjudication in light of Gardner was not required.
-- Conteras v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-990 (2 Vet. App. 275 (1992))
Remand was required because it was not function of Court of Veterans Appeals to assign disability rating, but
rather, to decide whether Board of Veterans' Appeals clearly erred.
-- Melaragni v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-340 (3 Vet. App. 20 (1992))
102
Remand was required for determination in light of Court of Veterans Appeals decision finding regulation to be
in conflict with statute.
-- Werner v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-234 (3 Vet. App. 37 (1992))
Court of Veterans Appeals' direction that readjudication on remand be prompt did not invalidate Secretary's stay
of post-Gardner proceedings pending Federal Circuit disposition of that case.
-- Justice v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1162 (3 Vet. App. 164 (1992))
Claim requesting increased rating for service-connections residual of gunshot wound required remand.
-- Dondero v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1396 (3 Vet. App. 169 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board to supplement record with regard to unemployability claim.
-- Babchak v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1376 (3 Vet. App. 466 (1992))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs fulfilled his duty to comply with remand order.
-- Fossie v. West – Docket No. 96-1695 (12 Vet. App. 234 (1999))
Apellants entitled to postremand notice of right to submit additional evidence.
-- Kutscherousky v. West – Docket No. 98-2267 (12 Vet. App. 369 (1999))
Remand rather reversal was appropriate.
-- Ralston v. West – Docket No. 98-688 (13 Vet. App. 108 (1999))
Additional action to enforce BVA remand order was not required.
-- Roberts v. West – Docket No. 97-1993 (13 Vet. App. 185 (1999))
Board of Veterans Appeals erred in not determining whether there was compliance with remand order.
-- Smith v. Gober – Docket No. 99-1471 (14 Vet. App., 199 (2001))
Remand required to determine whether the VCAA should apply to claimant.
--Neumann v. Principi –Docket No. 98-1410 (14 Vet. App., 304 (2001))
Court was not required to address other errors in VCAA remand.
-- Mahl v. Principi – Docket No.99-1678 (15 Vet. App., 37 (2001))
Other putative errors would not be addressed in remand order.
-- Oliphant v. Prinicipi – Docket No. 97-1567 (15 Vet. App., 116 (2001))
Remand for consideration of newly raised argument was appropriate.
-- Gordon v. Principi – Docket No. 99-200 (15 Vet. App., 124 (2001))
Remand was required to readjudicate claim under the VCAA.
-- Hodges v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1275 (15 Vet. App., 163 (2001))
Remand for readjudication in light of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) was required.
-- Davis v. Principi – Docket No. 97-1057 (15 Vet. App., 163 (2001))
Veteran was entitled to expeditious treatment of remand claim.
103
-- Vargas-Gonzales v. Principi – Docket No.01-312 (15 Vet. App., 222(2001))
Remand of appeal was required for consideration of effect of the VCAA.
-- Johnson v. Principi – Docket No. 99-1547 (15 Vet. App., 253 (2001))
Remand was appropriate where Board decision predated new statute.
-- Sanchez v. Principi – Docket No. 99-2043 (16 Vet. App., 16 (2002))
Remand was warranted for readjudication in light of the VCAA.
-- Hasty v. Principi – Docket No. 98-1511 (16 Vet. App., 101 (2002))
Remand for consideration in light of the VCAA was not required.
-- Stephens v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1516 (16 Vet. App., 191 (2002))
Remand of issue on appeal was appropriate.
-- Gallegos v. Principi – Docket No. 99-106 (16 Vet. App., 551(2003))
RENAL DISEASE: Veteran presented competent medical nexus evidence on plausibility that his
glomerulonephritis was linked to hematuria he experienced in service, making his service connection claim
well-grounded.
-- Watai v. Brown - Docket No. 94-476 (9 Vet. App. 441 (1996))
REOPENING: Evidence submitted by veteran since previous denial of service connection for his seizure
disorder was not new.
-- Person v. Brown - Docket No. 92-774 (5 Vet. App. 449 (1993)
Affidavit from guerillla leader provided new and material evidence to support reopening of claim for revocation
of forfeiture for providing assistance to enemy.
-- Villaruz v. Brown - Docket No. 93-401 (7 Vet. App. 561 (1995))
Board of Veterans' Appeals properly applied new and material evidence standard in denying and refusing to
reopen previously denied claim despite regional office failure to apply new and material evidence standard.
-- Barnett v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1098 (8 Vet. App. 1 (1995))
Claimant, who received bad-conduct discharge pursuant to general court-martial, failed to present new and
material evidence as required for reopening of his claim, which was previously denied for lack of qualifying
service discharge.
-- Hayes v. Brown - Docket No. 93-771 (7 Vet. App. 420 (1995))
Veteran's childhood medical records and notarized statement from his mother was new and material evidence
requiring reopening of his finally denied claim of service connection for asthma.
-- Crowe v. Brown - Docket No. 93-550 (7 Vet. App. 238 (1994))
Notice of her second husband's death was not informal claim to reopen award of dependency and indemnity
compensation benefits for her first husband, who was killed in action.
-- Klutz v. Brown - Docket No. 94-85 (7 Vet. App. 304 (1994))
A regulation was new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim.
-- Jensen v. Brown - Docket No. 90-661 (7 Vet. App. 27 (1994))
104
Evidence relating to death of claimant's cohabitant, not to issue of fraud, was not material to forfeiture of
claimants' VA benefits.
-- Reyes v. Brown - Docket No. 93-996 (7 Vet. App. 113 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in determining that former prisoner of war must have new and material
evidence to reopen his claim for organic residuals of frozen feet.
-- Roncevich v. Brown - Docket No. 93-685 (7 Vet. App. 192 (1994))
Secretary's failure to reopen veteran's claim, despite adjudicating claim after considering evidence, was
prejudicial error based on additional evidence that could have been obtained from fulfilling statutory duty to
assist.
-- Duran v. Brown - Docket No. 93-388 (7 Vet. App. 216 (1994))
BVA could address merits of claim, even though regional office did not, as veteran was not prejudiced by
consideration of merits.
-- Curry v. Brown - Docket No. 91-504 (7 Vet. App. 59 (1994))
Two physicians' reports were new and material evidence for purposes of reopening veteran's claim for service
connection for right shoulder disability.
-- Kightly v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1410 (6 Vet. App. 200 (1994))
New evidence submitted in support of service connection for residuals of motor vehicle accident was not
material evidence and did not warrant reopening of claim.
-- White v. Brown - docket No. 90-720 (6 Vet. App. 247 (1994))
Veteran's testimony that specific doctor treated him for nervous condition was not new and material evidence
warranting reopening of claim.
-- Henderson v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1079 (6 Vet. App. 45 (1993))
Report of chiropractor did not show that in service care accident was cause of veteran's current disability so as
to warrant reopening claim.
-- Cornele v. Brown - Docket No. 92-804 (6 Vet. App. 59 (1993))
BVA's error in applying test for reopening previously disallowed claim for service connection for residuals of
frostbite was harmless error.
-- Guimond v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1092 (6 Vet. App. 69 (1993))
Private childhood medical records and religious book were not material to support reopening of veteran's claim
for service connection for psychiatric disorder.
-- Warren v. Brown - Docket No. 93-25 (6 Vet. App. 4 (1993))
Physician's letter was "material" evidence, warranting reopening of veteran's claim for service connection for
hearing loss.
-- Ramirez v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1582 (6 Vet. App. 6 (1993))
VA clinical records indicating residuals of frostbite and arthritis were not material to support reopening.
-- Pollard v. Brown - Docket No. 92-584 (6 Vet. App. 11 (1993))
105
Evidence submitted by veteran since previous denial of service connection for his seizure disorder was not new.
-- Person v. Brown - Docket No. 92-774 (5 Vet. App. 449 (1993))
Doctor's statement, relying on claimant's previously rejected amount of his medical history and service
background, did not support reopening of claim for service connection.
-- Reonal v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2014 (5 Vet. App. 458 (1993))
Veteran failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of his claim for service connection
for schizophrenia.
-- Annoni v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1544 (5 Vet. App. 463 (1993))
Veteran's new evidence regarding degree of intoxication and inability to drive was not material to whether
incident resulted from his will misconduct.
-- Chavarria v. Brown - Docket No. 92-738 (5 Vet. App. 468 (1993))
Letters from treating physician were not material evidence to reopen veteran's claim for service connection for
schizophrenia.
-- Elkins v. Brown - Docket No. 92-144 (5 Vet. App. 474 (1993))
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs (VA) did not adequately carry out Court's direction in remanding case to seek
recent exam referred to by VA psychiatrist.
-- Booth v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1099 (8 Vet. App. 109 (1995))
Medical records that veteran complained of back pain in 1967 was new evidence, supporting reopening of her
service connection claim.
-- Carroll v. Brown - Docket No.93-595 (8 Vet. App. 128 (1995))
Remand of veteran's claims was required for Board of Veterans' Appeals to determine whether any new and
material evidence has been submitted for claims to be reopened.
-- Wakeford v. Brown - Docket No. 93-403 (8 Vet. App. 237 (1995))
Treating doctor's medical statements were new and material evidence compelling reopening of previously
disallowed veterans benefits claim.
-- Wilkinson v. Brown - Docket No. (8 Vet. App. 263 (1995))
Veteran's 1975 rating decision never became final without issuance of statement of the case, which was required
for him to file formal appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals.
-- Tablazon v. Brown - Docket No. (8 Vet. App. 359 (1995))
Veteran's testimony that he has had painful feet ever since service in his resubmitted claim for service
connection for pes planus was sufficient to reopen claim.
-- Falzone v. Brown - Docket No. 93-942 (8 Vet. App. 398 (1995))
Widow failed to present new and material evidence to warrant reopening of claim for revocation of forfeiture of
benefits.
-- Jandoc v. Brown - Docket No. 93-386 (8 Vet. App. 476 (1996))
106
Veteran's widow did not present new and material evidence necessary to reopen decision denying recognition of
children as veteran's adopted children.
-- Mata v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1309 (8 Vet. App. 485 (1996))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs failed to fulfill his obligation to inform veteran of evidence necessary to complete
his application for benefits.
-- Graves v. Brown - Docket No. 94-915 (8 Vet. App. 522 (1996))
Medical record that veteran had trouble with his throat since discharge was not new and material evidence to
reopen throat condition claim.
--Butler v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1194 (9 Vet. App. 167 (1996))
Evidence submitted after rating denial was not material to whether veteran's human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV)-related complications or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) were manifested during service,
as required for reopening.
-- YT v. Brown - Docket No. 95-997 (9 Vet. App. 195 (1996))
Presumptions of sound condition and aggravation could not be treated as new evidence to support reopening of
1955 denial of claim for service connection of duodenal ulcer.
-- Dolan v. Brown - Docket No. 94-589 (9 Vet. App. 358 (1996))
Veteran's school medical records were not material and did not support reopening finally denied claim for left
varicocele.
-- Nici v. Brown - Docket No. 95-460 (9 Vet. App. 494 (1996))
Medical opinion that veteran's alleged 1945 back injury could be contributing factor to his current
symptomatology was new and material evidence which supported reopening.
-- Molloy v. Brown - Docket No. 93-749 (9 Vet. App. 513 (1996))
Veteran's widow failed to present new and material evidence which would have warranted reopening of
previously disallowed claim.
-- Helige v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1487 (4 Vet. App. 32 (1993))
BVA erred in applying benefit of doubt doctrine to decision to reopen veteran's claim.
-- Martinez v. Brown - Docket No. 92-503 (6 Vet. App. 462 (1994))
Veteran failed to present new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his previously denied claim for service
connection for retinitis pigmentosa.
-- Moray v. Brown - Docket No. 92-630 (5 Vet. App. 211 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence sufficient to reopen ulcerative colitis claim. -- Sugar v.
Brown - Docket No. 92-183 (5 Vet. App. 265 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit sufficient new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for fungal
infection.
-- Kates v. Brown - Docket No. 92-348 (5 Vet. App. 93 (1993))
107
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for service-connection for
hypertension and stomach disorder.
-- Cox v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1455 (5 Vet. App. 95 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence sufficient to reopen claim of entitlement to service
connection for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- Sklar v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1586 (5 Vet. App. 140 (1993))
There was no new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously disallowed claim for psychiatric
disorder.
-- Lewis v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1332 (5 Vet. App. 151 (1993))
Veteran claiming service connection for back disorder was not entitled to have claim reopened.
-- Thompson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-277 (5 Vet. App. 165 (1993))
Widow failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for service connection for
husband's death.
-- Barfield v. Brown - Docket No. 92-10 (5 Vet. App. 8 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for service connected
disability compensation for shrapnel wounds.
-- Alcaide v. Brown - Docket No. 92-610 (5 Vet. App. 9 (1993))
Veteran was not entitled to reopen claim for pulmonary tuberculosis.
-- Wilson v. Brown - Docket No. 92-692 (5 Vet. App. 11 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for service connection for
back disorder.
-- ZO v. Brown - Docket No. 93-250 (4 Vet. App. 440 (1993))
Veteran presented new and material evidence warranting reopening of his claim for service connection for foot
and back disorders.
-- Stozek v. Brown - Docket No. 91-585 (4 Vet. App. 457 (1993))
Veteran failed to present new and material evidence which would have warranted reopening of claim for right
knee disability.
-- McIntosh v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2162 (4 Vet. App. 553 (1993))
Veteran was entitled to reopening of claim for schizophrenia.
-- Forrest v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1291 (4 Vet. App. 276 (1993))
VA was not prohibited prior to enactment of the Veterans' Judicial Review Act from adjudicating previously
and finally denied claim when new and material evidence from sources other than service department records
was presented or secured.
-- Spencer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-62 (1 Vet. App. 125 (1991))
Physician's statement was not material evidence warranting reopening of claim for degenerative arthritis of the
legs.
-- Stokes v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1669 (4 Vet. App. 336 (1993))
108
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously denied claim for service
connection for low back disorder.
-- Montgomery v. Brown - Docket No. 91-410 (4 Vet. App. 343 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit material evidence which would have warranted reopening of previously disallowed
claim for neuropsychiatric disorder.
-- Green v. Brown - Docket No. 90-335 (4 Vet. App. 382 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for Service connection for
psychiatric disability.
-- Walden v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1354 (4 Vet. App. 402 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence to warrant reopening of claim.
-- Keating v. Brown - Docket No. 91-861 (4 Vet. App. 408 (1993))
Veteran failed to present new and material evidence sufficient to reopen headache-related claim that was
previously denied by Board of Veterans' Appeals.
-- Livingston v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-96 (1 Vet. App. 34 (1990))
Veteran presented new and material evidence providing basis for reopening claim that he had incurred multiple
sclerosis during service.
-- Colvin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-196 (1 Vet. App. 171 (1991))
Discharge summary submitted with veteran's request to reopen claim was not material.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-13 (1 Vet. App. 178 (1991))
Evidence submitted by veteran in attempt to reopen claim was not new or material.
-- Garland v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-414 (1 Vet. App. 250 (1991))
Veteran failed to present new and material evidence to warrant reopening of previously denied claim.
-- Thompson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-239 (1 Vet. App. 251 (1991))
Veteran produced new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim that his arthritic knee condition
was secondary to his service connected disorders.
-- Giglio v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1444 (2 Vet. App. 560 (1992))
Veteran received full and fair hearing as to his new evidence in support of reopening claim that his left eye
disability was service connected.
-- Pack v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1403 (2 Vet. App. 567 (1992))
Veteran did not submit new and material evidence which entitled him to reopening of previously disallowed
claim for service connection for multiple sclerosis.
-- Miller v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-432 (2 Vet. App. 578 (1992))
There was no new and material evidence to justify reopening of claim for service connected disability
compensation for acquired psychiatric disorder of left eye disorder.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-166 (2 Vet. App. 217 (1992))
109
Veteran submitted new and material evidence which justified reopening of previously disallowed claim for
chronic prostatitis.
-- Case v. Derwinski-Docket 90-1029 (2 Vet. App. 592 (1992))
Claimant failed to submit new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim.
-- Deese v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-1008 (2 Vet. App. 637 (1992))
Veteran submitted new and material evidence which warranted reopening previously disallowed claim for
postoperative residuals of laminectomy.
-- Cochran v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-490 (2 Vet. App. 649 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to have claim for back injury reopened.
-- Elliott v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-676 (2 Vet. App. 463 (1992))
Audiogram submitted by veteran, combined with his statement that it came from his service medical records,
was sufficient new and material evidence to warrant reopening of claim for hearing loss.
-- Gobber v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-802 (2 Vet. App. 470 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to reopen claim for service connected disability.
-- Flescher v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-815 (2 Vet. App. 473 (1992))
Veteran did not submit new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim.
-- Wilson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1080 (2 Vet. App. 483 (1992))
Veteran failed to present new and material evidence sufficient to warrant reopening of claim.
-- Herrera v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-197 (2 Vet. App. 510 (1992))
Veteran did not submit new and material evidence which warranted reopening of previously disallowed claim
for service connection for stomach adhesions.
-- Mullins v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-658 (2 Vet. App. 522 (1992))
Veteran failed to present new evidence warranting reopening of claim.
-- Mason v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-482 (2 Vet. App. 526 (1992))
Claimant failed to present new and material evidence sufficient to reopen claim for dependency and indemnity
compensation.
-- Williams v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2107 (4 Vet. App. 200 (1993))
Physician's letter suggesting it was possible that veteran had regional ileitis during time in service was new and
material evidence.
-- Hadsell v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1526 (4 Vet. App. 208 (1993))
Widow failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for dependency and
indemnity compensation.
-- McGinnis v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1292 (4 Vet. App. 239 (1993))
110
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence on his previously denied claim to service connection for
acquired psychiatric disorder.
-- Sweat v. Principi - Docket No. 91-605 (4 Vet. App. 67 (1993))
Veteran submitted new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously disallowed claim.
-- Chipego v. Brown - Docket No. 90-639 (4 Vet. App. 102 (1993))
Veteran failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for service connection for
hypertension.
-- Corpuz v. Brown - Docket No. 90-201 (4 Vet. App. 110 (1993))
Evidence submitted by veteran to reopen claim was either not material to issue of service connection or
cumulative of evidence previously submitted.
-- Morton v. Principi - Docket No. 90-723 (3 Vet. App. 508 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals improperly assessed credibility of evidence before deciding question of law as to
whether evidence was new and material.
-- Justus v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1596 (3 Vet. App. 510 (1992))
Physician's opinion corroborating opinion of another physician already contained in record was material
evidence for claim reopening where scientific opinion was split.
-- Paller v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1620 (3 Vet. App. 535 (1992))
Veteran's sworn testimony as to hearing problems in service was new and material evidence justifying
reopening claim of service connection for hearing loss.
-- Cuevas v. Principi - Docket No. 91-266 (3 Vet. App. 542 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals improperly reopened veteran's claim for service connection for back disorder.
-- Wilson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1080 (2 Vet. App. 483 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to have claim for service connection for bilateral knee disorder reopened.
-- Moore v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-80 (2 Vet. App. 209 (1992))
Failure of Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) to consider and explain whether evidence received since prior
decision was new and material so to warrant reopening warranted remand.
-- Curry v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-504(2 Vet. App. 213 (1992))
Parties were required to show cause why case should not be summarily affirmed on grounds that there was lack
of new material evidence to justify reopening of previously disallowed claim.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1351 (3 Vet. App. 205 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in making conclusory statement that veteran reopened claim without deciding
whether claim was reopened with new and material evidence.
-- Sanchez v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-794 (2 Vet. App. 330 (1992))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence to reopen claim.
-- Irvin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-774 (2 Vet. App. 358 (1992))
111
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in failing to consider both old and new evidence in readjudicating prior claim
upon reopening.
-- Abernathy v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1067 (2 Vet. App. 534 (1992))
Veteran failed to produce new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for earlier effective date for
grant of service connection.
-- Million v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-602 (2 Vet. App. 1 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals improperly reopened claim for service connection for calluses on feet.
-- Kehoskie v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-35 (2 Vet. App. 31 (1991))
Veteran submitted new and material evidence requiring reopening of prior disallowance of claim.
-- Tobin v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1053 (2 Vet. App. 34 (1991))
Veteran submitted new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for service connection for
psychiatric disorder.
-- Pruitt v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-855 (2 Vet. App. 83 (1992))
Newly submitted evidence could not have reasonably changed outcome with respect to previously denied
claims for service connection and was not material.
-- De Perez v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-487 (2 Vet. App. 85 (1992))
Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) to address letters and testimony of veteran and to perform two
step analysis for reopened claims warrants reversal.
-- Mohr v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-721 (3 Vet. App. 63 (1992))
Claimant failed to show new and material evidence of service connection for his spinal meningitis to warrant
reopening disability claim.
-- Brammer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-476 (3 Vet. App. 223 (1992))
Nineteen-year old medical examination report was new and material evidence which warranted reopening of
claim for back disorder.
-- Tozian v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1670 (3 Vet. App. 268 (1992))
Record contained new and material evidence requiring Board of Veterans' Appeals to reopen claim for service
connection for headache condition.
-- Vanderpool v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-657 (3 Vet. App. 273 (1992))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence to reopen claim for service connected disability
compensation for lung disorder.
-- Gowen v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-796 (3 Vet. App. 286 (1992))
New evidence submitted by veteran in support of reopening claim was not material.
-- Blanchard v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1133 (3 Vet. App. 300 (1992))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence sufficient to reopen claim for service connection for
diabetes mellitus.
-- Captain v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1357 (3 Vet. App. 341 (1992))
112
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in its analysis when it decided not to reopen a previously disallowed claim for
service connection for psoriatic arthritis.
-- Woods v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1105 (3 Vet. App. 376 (1992))
Veteran submitted new and material evidence which warranted reopening of previously disallowed claim for
seizure disorder.
-- Quinn v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1538 (3 Vet. App. 23 (1992))
Any error in reopening claim was harmless in view of ultimate denial of claim.
-- Kushindana v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-379 (3 Vet. App. 27 (1992))
There was no new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously disallowed claim for
arteriosclerotic heart disease with myocardial infarction and congestive heart failure.
-- Simmons v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1257 (3 Vet. App. 29 (1992))
Widow's claim for service-connection for cause of veteran's death could not be reopened on bases of letter
submitted by veteran's private physician.
-- Hudson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-96 (3 Vet. App. 467 (1992))
Veteran submitted new and material evidence warranting reopening of claim for service connection for malaria.
-- Mohr v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1103 (3 Vet. App. 90 (1992))
Veteran failed to present new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously disallowed claim for
psychiatric disorder and back disorder.
-- St. Arbor v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1385 (3 Vet. App. 81 (1992))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence justifying reopening of previously disallowed claim for
brain damage.
-- Miller v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1103 (3 Vet. App. 90 (1992))
There was new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously disallowed claim for service
connection for bilateral hearing loss.
-- Stoneking v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1220 (3 Vet. App. 103 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to apply correct standards for reopening previously disallowed claim.
-- Yankus v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1259 (3 Vet. App. 106 (1992))
New evidence submitted by veteran did not justify reopening decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals denying
service connection for back and skin disorders.
-- Evans v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-553 (3 Vet. App. 193 (1992))
New medical records regarding treatment of a current condition did not relate condition to veteran's service and
thus did not establish basis for reopening claim for valvular heart disease.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1351 (3 Vet. App. 205 (1992))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence sufficient to reopen claim of flat feet.
-- Saylock v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1281 (3 Vet. App. 394 (1992))
113
Evidence did not warrant reopening of previously disallowed claims for ear defect and testicle disorder.
-- Laure v. Principi - Docket No. 91-615 (3 Vet. App. 395 (1992))
Veteran failed to submit new and material evidence to justify reopening claim.
-- Mills v. Principi - Docket No. 90-512 (3 Vet. App. 412 (1992))
Physician's statement was not new and material evidence which warranted reopening of previously disallowed
claim for service connection for loss of right eye.
-- Villalobos v. Principi - Docket No. 90-620 (3 Vet. App. 450 (1992))
Veteran failed to provide new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously denied claim.
-- Barbour v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1338 (3 Vet. App. 476 (1992))
New and material evidence was required to reopen widow’s dependency and indemnity compensation claim.
-- Green v. Brown - Docket No. 95-497 (10 Vet. App. 111 (1997))
Veteran offered new and material evidence required for reopening his service-connection claim.
-- Suozzi v. Brown - Docket No. 95-395 (10 Vet. App. 307 (1997))
Veteran submitted new and material evidence to reopen his previously denied service connection claim for heart
disease.
-- Lee v. Brown - Docket No. 96-344 (10 Vet. App. 336 (1997))
New and material evidence was required to reopen veteran’s claim even after invalidation of regulation.
-- Boggs. V. West – Docket No. 96-1624 (11 Vet. App. 334 (1998))
Veteran did not submit new and material evidence warranting reopening of service connection claim for low
back disorder.
-- Hickson v. West – Docket No. 96-1669 (11 Vet. App. 374 (1998))
Failure to apply presumptions cannot be treated as a form of “new and material evidence.”
-- Hicks v. West – Docket No. 93-1222 ( 12 Vet. App. 86 (1998))
Pension claim remanded for adjudication under reopening analysis.
Fulkerson v. West – Docket No. 94-304 ( 12 Vet. App. 268 (1999))
Notice requirement of the VCAA applies to claimants seeking to reopen claim.
-- Quartuccio v. Principi – Docket No. 183 (16 vet. App., 183 (2002))
REPRESENTATIVE: Rule of the Court of Veterans Appeals governing appearance by a representative
construed.
-- McNeely v. West – Docket No. 95-1000 (11 Vet. App. 350 (1998))
REPRESENTATION BY NON-ATTORNEY: "Good cause" under rule permitting representation by nonattorney requires there be special relationship, other than contractual, between claimant and non-attorney, that
no fee be charged, and that special circumstances exist limiting ability of claimant to proceed pro se.
-- Thomas v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-493 (1 Vet. App. 289 (1991))
114
RES JUDICATA: Claim of clear and unmistakable error was precluded by doctrine of res judicata.
-- Arcala v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1522 (4 Vet. App. 72 (1993))
Settlement of class action challenging constitutionality of discontinuance of benefits statute barred individual
action by veteran as absent class member.
-- McDowell v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1376 (5 Vet. App. 401 (1993))
Veteran’s argument for an earlier effective date was barred by res judicata.
-- Corwin v. Principi – Docket No. 02-0578 (18 Vet. App., 246 (2004))
RESTORATION: Board of Veterans' Appeals improperly reversed veterans standard of proof by requiring
him to prove entitlement to restoration of his previous 100 percent rating.
-- Kitchens v. Brown - Docket No. 93-256 (7 Vet. App. 320 (1994))
RESTORED ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM: Publication in Federal Register or regulations implementing
Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors was sufficient notice to claimant of eligibility for those benefits.
-- Hill v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-868 (2 Vet. App. 570 (1992))
RESUBMITTED CLAIM: Where veteran failed to produce new and material evidence warranting reopening
claim, it was improper for BVA to disregard effect of previous denial of claim and adjudicate claim on merits.
-- Fluker v. Brown - Docket No. 91-363 (5 Vet. App. 296 (1993))
RETROACTIVITY OF RATING: Veteran was entitled to have his current 30% disability rating made
retroactive to date of original rating decision.
-- Myler v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1098 (1 Vet. App. 571 (1991))
REVOCATION: Plausible basis supported denial of claimant's request to revoke forfeiture of serviceconnected compensation.
-- Tulingan v. Brown - Docket No. 95-59 (9 Vet. App. 484 (1996))
SANCTIONS: Secretary of Veterans Affairs was required to reimburse veterans for expenses and professional
time invested in prosecution of second petition for extraordinary relief as sanction for abuse of judicial process.
-- Jones v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-649 (1 Vet. App. 596 (1991))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs was required to show cause why financial or other sanctions should not be
imposed for failure to file record and memorandum within applicable time period.
-- Drenkhahn v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-5 (2 Vet. App. 207 (1992))
Secretary of Veterans Affairs was required to show cause why costs should not be awarded to veteran based
upon Secretary's delay in responding to veteran's request for records.
-- Hines v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1718 (2 Vet. App. 30 (1991))
Continued delay and procrastination on part of Secretary of Veterans Affairs in transmitting record warranted
sanctions.
-- Adamski v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-888 (2 Vet. App. 46 (1991))
Delay in complying with remand order did not warrant sanctions.
-- Belton v. West – Docket No. 98-1225 (13 Vet. App. 200 (1999))
115
SCARRING: Board of Veterans' Appeals had to consider additional evidence submitted by veteran in support
of his claim that service-related injuries resulting from mountain climbing accident resulted in a "ratable" scar.
-- Thaxton v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1602 (3 Vet. App. 442 (1992))
SCHIZOPHRENIA: Veteran submitted new and material evidence justifying reopening of claim for service
connection for schizophrenia.
-- Sagainza v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-760 (1 Vet. App. 575 (1991))
BVA misapplied regulation applicable at time of prior reduction of total disability rating schizophrenia in
determining whether that reduction was a product of clear and unmistakable error.
-- Ternus v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1903 (6 Vet. App. 370 (1994))
Veteran was entitled to restoration of his 100% service connected disability rating for schizophrenia.
-- Karnas v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-312 (1 Vet. App. 308 (1991))
SEALING OF RECORDS: History of emotional and mental illness did not itself constitute good cause to
warrant sealing of judicial records.
-- Mack v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1930 (2 Vet. App. 345 (1992))
SEIZURE DISORDER: Service connection claim for seizure disorder was well grounded based on evidence
of current seizure disorder, episodes of headaches in service, and possible link between them.
-- Alemany v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1025 (9 Vet. App. 518 (1996))
SERVICE CONNECTION: Veteran was entitled to grant of service connection for his bilateral keratoconus.
-- Kinnaman v. Principi - Docket No. 90-784 (4 Vet. App. 20 (1993))
Claimant's own statement that he was denied enlistment in Marines because he was diagnosed with anxiety was
inadequate basis for conclusion that he had psychiatric condition that preexisted his military service.
-- Paulson v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1043 (7 Vet. App. 466 (1995))
There was plausible basis in record for Board's conclusion that veteran's "degenerative osteoarthritis" of spine
did not first arise during service or presumptive period.
-- Cahall v. Brown - Docket No. 93-773 (7 Vet. App. 232 (1994))
Veteran's service connection for nervous condition related to hearing loss and tinnitus was well-grounded.
-- Cromley v. Brown - Docket No. 93-793 (7 Vet. App. 376 (1995))
Denial of service connection for neurological disorder and arthritis was not erroneous.
-- McGraw v. Brown - Docket No. 93-27 (7 Vet. App. 138 (1994))
Board of Veterans Appeals' determination that veteran's statements of in-service diagnosis and treatment for
pulmonary tuberculosis lacked credibility was supported by plausible basis in record.
-- Salong v. Brown - Docket No. 93-620 (7 Vet. App. 130 (1994))
BVA Improperly relied on absence of service medical records entry indication in service treatment for hearing
complaints to discount veteran's testimony of service incurrence.
-- Peters v. Brown - Docket No. 93-394 (6 Vet. App. 540 (1994))
116
Record contained plausible basis supporting BVA's determination that veteran's fatal fall was not due to service
connected disability.
-- Harvey v. Brown - Docket No. 93-118 (6 Vet. App. 390 (1994))
Remand was required on veteran's claim for service connection for multiple sclerosis.
-- Obert v. Brown - Docket No. 91-2211 (5 Vet. App. 30 (1993))
Remand was required on veteran's claim for service connection for back disorder
-- Black v. Brown - Docket No. 92-680 (5 Vet. App. 177 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals clearly erred in denying secondary service connection for veteran's right knee
disability.
-- Harder v. Brown - Docket No. 91-427 (5 Vet. App. 183 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to supply adequate reasons for conclusion that disability of veteran's right
scapula was not incurred in or aggravated by active service.
-- Pefianco v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1137 (5 Vet. App. 226 (1993))
Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to include analysis of credibility or probative value of opinion evidence
of physicians which supported claim for service connection for hypertension secondary to service connected
post-traumatic distress disorder warranted remand.
-- Perman v. Brown - Docket No. 92-49 (5 Vet. App. 237 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in denying service connection for atherosclerotic peripheral vascular disease
with right above-the- knee amputation.
-- Houston v. Brown - Docket No. 92-164 (5 Vet. App. 245 (1993))
Veteran's lymphoma was not caused by occupation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
-- Walls v. Brown - Docket No. 91-210 (5 Vet. App. 46 (1993))
Veteran did not have to receive combat award or be wounded in combat, but only had to have been "engaged in
combat with the enemy" to be afforded special consideration with regard to claims for service-connection.
-- Davis v. Brown - Docket No. 91-639 (5 Vet. App. 51 (1993))
Denial of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder and panic disorder was not clearly erroneous.
-- Hayes v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1306 (5 Vet. App. 60 (1993))
Veteran failed to submit well grounded claim for quadriplegia secondary to rheumatoid arthritis.
-- Grottveit v. Brown - Docket No. 92-20 (5 Vet. App. 91 (1993))
Remand was required of decision of Board of Veterans Appeals that there was no clear and mistakable error in
previous denial of entitlement to service connection for duodenal ulcer.
-- Ingram v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1027 (5 Vet. App. 5 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its denial of service connection for
asbestosis.
-- McGinty v. Brown - Docket No. 91-522 (4 Vet. App. 428 (1993))
117
Remand was required on Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of frostbite.
-- Ennis v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1536 (4 Vet. App. 438 (1993))
In order to be eligible for presumptive service connection, veteran must have served at least 90 days of
continuous service.
-- Lorenzano v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1016 (4 Vet. App. 446 (1993))
Record provided plausible basis for finding that back condition did not originate in service and was not
aggravated during merchant marine service.
-- Holoway v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1060 (4 Vet. App. 454 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals properly denied Veteran's claim for service connection for eye condition as residual
of radiation exposure during service, as none of diagnosed disorders was radiogenic disease defined by law or
regulations.
-- Nix v. Brown - Docket No. 91-270 (4 Vet. App. 462 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to give adequate reasons or bases for decision that veteran's retinitis
pigmentosa preexisted his periods of service.
-- D'Amato v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1533 (4 Vet. App. 481 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals had to accept as sufficient proof of service connection veteran's unrebutted lay
evidence of service incurrence which was consistent with circumstances of service.
-- Franko v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1473 (4 Vet. App. 502 (1993))
Statement of reasons of Board of Veterans' Appeals for denial of service connection for heart disability was
inadequate.
-- Monroe v. Brown - Docket No. 92-275 (4 Vet. App. 513 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons for denial of claim for polycythemia
rubra vera.
-- Ennis v. Brown - Docket No. 91-836 (4 Vet. App. 523 (1993))
Veteran failed to present well-grounded claim for service connection for brain damage.
-- Clarkson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1110 (4 Vet. App. 565 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its denial of previously disallowed
claim for service connection for Buerger's disease.
-- Watson v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1218 (4 Vet. App. 309 (1993))
Evidence did not support claim that veteran's in-service injury to his ear resulted in his subsequent hearing loss.
-- Bankowski v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-176 (1 Vet. App. 37 (1990))
Evidence supported veteran's claim this his psychiatric disability was service connected.
-- Willis v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-27 (1 Vet. App. 66 (1991))
Decision by Board of Veterans' Appeals denying entitlement to service connection for chronic interstitial
cystitis was not clearly erroneous.
-- Sanders v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-84 (1 Vet. App. 88 (1990))
118
Evidence supported denial of service connection for veteran's current psychotic condition.
-- Green v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-163 (1 Vet. App. 320 (1991))
Presumption of service connection was not rebutted by clear and unmistakable evidence.
-- Akins v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-115 (1 Vet. App. 228 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals adequately explicated reasons or bases for denying award of service connection for
thrombophlebitis incurred while claimant was on active duty.
-- Crance v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-255 (1 Vet. App. 239 (1991))
Veteran abandoned claim for service connected foot condition by failing to respond to Veterans Administrations
request for additional evidence.
-- Morris v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-305 (1 Vet. App. 260 (1991))
Finding by Board of Veterans' Appeals that in-service epigastric complaints did not represent chronic stomach
disorder was clearly erroneous.
-- Brannon v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-333 (1 Vet. App. 314 (1991))
Service connection was not warranted for veteran's low back condition.
-- Mense v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-182 (1 Vet. App. 354 (1991))
Veteran was not entitled to service connection for hearing loss.
-- Llanes v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-465 (2 Vet. App. 540 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans Appeals to consider evidence that veteran's stomach disorder
existed during and after discharge.
-- Bivins v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-771 (2 Vet. App. 544 (1992))
Denial of claim for service connection for cardiovascular disability was not clearly erroneous.
-- Williams v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-267 (2 Vet. App. 552 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board to consider numerous ailments and their relationship to service connected
ailments.
-- Seaton v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1284 (2 Vet. App. 606 (1992))
Veteran's death due to myocardial infarction was not service connected to his facial deformities which
prevented intubation.
-- Tirpak v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-780 (2 Vet. App. 609 (1992))
Remand was required based upon Board's failure to rule on credibility of veteran's lay evidence on reopened
claim for service connection for residuals of shrapnel wound.
-- Garlejo v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-334 (2 Vet. App. 619 (1992))
There was plausible basis in record for determination that cervical spine disorder, bilateral shoulder disorder,
and degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine were not service connected.
-- Mosley v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-953 (2 Vet. App. 653 (1992))
Record contained plausible basis for decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals denying entitlement to service
connection for ear disorder and hearing loss.
119
-- Slater v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1762 (4 Vet. App. 43 (1993))
Decision of Board of Veterans Appeals denying service connection for arthritis, joint damage, and low back
condition was clearly erroneous.
-- Moore v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-41 (1 Vet. App. 401 (1991))
Denial of service connection for psychiatric disorder had to be vacated and case remanded for readjudication of
post-traumatic stress disorder claim.
-- Rollins v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-690 (2 Vet. App. 481 (1992))
There was no plausible basis in record for denial of service connection for ankylosing spondylitis.
-- Lowe v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-107 (2 Vet. App. 495 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to service connected disability compensation for asserted residuals of exposure to
ionizing radiation.
-- Hodsden v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1528 (2 Vet. App. 504 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to reimbursement for medical expenses incurred before service connection for heart
disease had been established.
-- Argo v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-152 (2 Vet. App. 509 (1992))
Board of Veterans Appeals erred in concluding that lay evidence not supported by clinical evidence provided no
basis on which to establish service connection.
-- Sheets v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-709 (2 Vet. App. 512 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons and bases for conclusion that veteran's death due
to pancreatitis was not a service connected disability.
-- Watson v. Brown - Docket No. 91-961 (4 Vet. App. 189 (1993))
Veteran was not entitled to service-connection for skin carcinoma due to exposure to ionizing radiation absent
evidence of in-service exposure.
-- Lauginiger v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1154 (4 Vet. App. 214 (1993))
Veteran is not entitled to service-connection for increment in severity of nonservice-connected injury
attributable to service-connected injury.
-- Leopoldo v. Brown - Docket No. 90-612 (4 Vet. App. 216 (1993))
Rejection of back disorder claim by Board of Veterans' Appeals was not clearly erroneous.
-- Ashley v. Principi - Docket No. 91-582 (4 Vet. App. 75 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in denying claim for thoracic outlet syndrome.
-- Rhodes v. Brown - Docket No. 91-594 (4 Vet. App. 124 (1993))
Determination that veteran's lung cancer was caused by heavy smoking, not exposure to radiation or toxic
chemicals, had plausible basis in record.
-- Harrision v. Principi - Docket No. 90-532 (3 Vet. App. 532 (1992))
120
Evidence supported conclusion that veteran exhibited symptoms of psychosis within one year after separation
from service, warranting presumption of service connection.
-- Caldwell v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-662 (3 Vet. App. 3 (1991))
Determination by Board of Veterans' Appeals that veteran's left shoulder pathology was not secondary to his
right forearm amputation was clearly erroneous.
-- Meister v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-31 (1 Vet. App. 472 (1991))
Veteran's multiple sclerosis was not incurred during her period of active duty for training.
-- Biggins v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-829 (1 Vet. App. 474 (1991))
Presumption of service connection for arthritic condition of right foot and thoracic spine was not rebutted.
-- Lichtenfels v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-705 (1 Vet. App. 484 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals' (BVA) decision which denied secondary service connection for right
axillary/subclavian stenosis was clearly erroneous.
-- Futch v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-376 (2 Vet. App. 204 (1992))
Veteran was entitled to service connection for residuals of frostbitten feet.
-- Horvath v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-481 (2 Vet. App. 240 (1992))
Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to apply proper standard of review in denying service connection for
colon cancer was not prejudicial error.
-- Wikman v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-515 (2 Vet. App. 272 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals denial of service connection for veteran's back disorder was not clearly erroneous.
-- Reid v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1113 (2 Vet. App. 312 (1992))
Veteran was entitled to service connection for dental malocclusion relating to fracture of right zygomatic bone.
-- Garrett v. Derwinski-Docket No. 91-936 (2 Vet. App. 334 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to consider presumption of service connection for rheumatoid arthritis.
-- Emperador v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-007 (2 Vet. App. 343 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeals applied incorrect legal standard with respect to evidentiary basis required to
establish service connection.
-- Godfrey v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1169 (2 Vet. App. 352 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to state adequate statement of reasons or bases for
its determination that veteran was not entitled to service connection for his chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease.
-- Hesse v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-763 (2 Vet. App. 359 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to explain why it did not credit veteran's testimony or medical authorities to
support contention that conditions incurred during service caused endocarditis.
-- Ziffer v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1428 (2 Vet. App. 380 (1992))
Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to consider adequately all evidence in record and give sufficient reasons
or bases for denial of service connection for low back disorder required remand.
121
-- Wilson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-673 (2 Vet. App. 16 (1991))
Denial of service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder was not clearly erroneous.
-- Mingo v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-992 (2 Vet. App. 51 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) did not commit legal or factual error warranting reversal of decision
refusing to grant service connection for chronic low back disorder.
-- Shoulders v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-667 (2 Vet. App. 90 (1992))
Statement from physician for veteran from 1949 to 1952 was insufficient to establish presumption that veteran's
current cardiovascular and hypertensive disease was service connected.
-- Oris v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-267 (2 Vet. App. 95 (1992))
Decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals denying veteran entitlement to service connection for chronic acquired
psychiatric disorder was not clearly erroneous.
-- Sanden v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1593 (2 Vet. App. 97 (1992))
Veteran was not entitled to service connection for hypertension.
-- Rabideau v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1296 (2 Vet. App. 141 (1992))
Record contained plausible basis for Board of Veterans' Appeals to deny service connection for death of veteran
from respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
-- Gartman v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1196 (3 Vet. App. 225 (1992))
Plausible basis existed for denial of service connection for cancers of larynx and urinary bladder and for
lymphoma.
-- Stegman v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1221 (3 Vet. App. 228 (1992))
Veteran's claim for service connection for malignant lymphoma was not well grounded.
-- Harvey v. Principi - Docket No. 91-680 (3 Vet. App. 343 (1992))
Veteran failed to demonstrate that Board of Veterans' Appeals committed legal or factual error which warranted
reversal of denial of service connection psychiatric disorder and seizure disorder.
-- Estep v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-764 (3 Vet. App. 2 (1991))
Conclusion by Board of Veterans' Appeals that lay evidence alone was insufficient to establish service
connection for residuals of back and leg injury was not in accordance with the law. -- Cahall v. Derwinski
-- Docket No. 90-1082 (3 Vet. App. 4 (1991))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to state reasons or bases for its denial of service
connection for arthritis.
-- Myers v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-629 (3 Vet. App. 11 (1991))
Board of Veterans' Appeal failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for denial of service connection for
ocular histoplasmosis.
-- Johnson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-30 (3 Vet. App. 16 (1991))
Decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals that lay evidence alone was insufficient to establish injury in service
was not in accordance with regulation.
122
-- Jeffers v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1022 (3 Vet. App. 22 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to state adequate reasons or bases for denial of service connection for back
disorder.
-- Stevenson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-315 (3 Vet. App. 31 (1992))
Record contained more than merely plausible basis for factual determinations that veteran's respiratory disease
existed prior to service and was not aggravated while in the service.
-- Poindexter v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-678 (3 Vet. App. 35 (1992))
Finding of Board of Veterans' Appeals that veteran was not entitled to service connection for celluitis was not
clearly erroneous.
-- Shoop v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-657 (3 Vet. App. 45 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for denial of service connection for
peptic ulcer disease.
-- Tenio v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-493 (3 Vet. App. 47 (1992))
There was no plausible basis for decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals denying service connection for
Raynaud's disease.
-- Borella v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-588 (3 Vet. App. 52 (1992))
Board of Veterans's Appeals erred in its denial of service connection for back disorder and its failure to afford
veteran's lay statement consideration and evidentiary weight.
-- Poe v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-808 (3 Vet. App. 55 (1992))
Finding that acquired eye disorder was not service-connected was not clearly erroneous.
-- Hughes v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-507 (3 Vet. App. 57 (1992))
Plausible basis existed for denial of service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder.
-- Cox v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-691 (3 Vet. App. 59 (1992))
Regulation dealing with determination of service connection for impaired hearing did not apply to veteran
whose separation physical examination did not include audiometric testing.
-- Ledford v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-903 (1 Vet. App. 386 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for denying service
connection for scoliosis.
-- Guetti v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-79 (3 Vet. App. 94 (1992))
Veteran's claim that loss of his vision was result of surgery performed by VA doctors was not well grounded.
-- Ross v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1495 (3 Vet. App. 141 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for denial of service
connection for back condition.
-- Hall v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-505 (3 Vet. App. 148 (1992))
Denial of service connection for weakness in upper and lower right extremities was not clearly erroneous.
-- Nixon v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-821 (3 Vet. App. 151 (1992))
123
Dependency and indemnity compensation claimant's new evidence regarding veteran's pulmonary tuberculosis
was not adequate to establish service connection for onset of the disease.
-- Tubianosa v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-893 (3 Vet. App. 180 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate written statement of reasons for denial of veteran's claim
for service-connected disability for ear disorder and hearing loss.
-- Sibley v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-553 (3 Vet. App. 188 (1992))
Remand was required to permit the Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide statement of reasons or bases for
rejecting medical opinions to effect that veteran's current difficulties were service connected.
-- Miller v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-858 (3 Vet. App. 201 (1992))
Decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals denying service connection for disability arising from laminectomies
was deficient.
-- Johnson v. Principi - Docket No. 91-726 (3 Vet. App. 448 (1992))
Error in applying wrong regulation to determine service connection was not prejudicial.
-- Wamhoff v. Brown - Docket No. 94-561 (8 Vet. App. 517 (1996))
BVA did not provide adequate statement of reasons or bases for denying veteran's claim for disability rating
exceeding 70% for schizophrenia with total rating based on individual unemployability.
-- Cathell v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1225 (8 Vet. App. 539 (1996))
BVA did not give adequate statement of reasons or bases for denying World War II combat veteran's service
connection claim for seizure disorder as residual of concussion or gunshot wound.
-- Smith v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1369 (8 Vet. App. 546 (1996))
Challenge to regulations prohibiting service connection for personality disorder was prohibited collateral attack
or final VA decision
-- Wilkins v. Brown - Docket No. 94-866 (8 Vet. App. 555 (1996))
Veteran's service connection claim for heart disorder was not well-grounded without medical evidence.
-- Gregory v. Brown - Docket No. 94-54 (8 Vet. App. 563 (1996))
Veteran established well grounded claim for service connection for heart disorder.
-- Perry v. Brown - Docket No. 94-962 (9 Vet. App. 2 (1996))
Remand was required on veteran's claim of service connection for residuals of stress fracture of right pelvis.
-- Johnson v. Brown - Docket No. 95-173 (9 Vet. App. 7 (1996))
Board of Veterans' Appeals' denial of claim for restoration of service connection was not clearly erroneous.
-- Ventigan v. Brown - Docket No. 94-699 (9 Vet. App. 34 (1996))
There was no error requiring reversal in Board of Veterans' Appeals decision denying veteran's claim for
service connection for pulmonary tuberculosis.
-- Murillo v. Brown - Docket No. 94-22 (9 Vet. App 322 (1996))
Assignment of 40% rating for veteran’s service-connected anatomical loss of his left eye was not clearly
erroneous.
124
-- Villano v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1006 (10 Vet. App. 248 (1997))
Veteran’s claim for service-connection for postoperative residuals of hernia repair was not well-grounded.
-- Chelte v. Brown - Docket No. 96-606 (10 Vet. App. 268 (1997))
Veteran failed to provide medical evidence that his heart disease was service connected.
-- Black v. Brown - Docket No. 95-47 (10 Vet. App. 279 (1997))
Claim for service connection for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection was well grounded.
-- Saathoff v. Gober - Docket No. 96-1067 (10 Vet. App. 326 (1997))
Veteran’s widow failed to establish that cause of veteran’s death was service connected.
-- Ruiz v. Gober - Docket No. 95-911 (10 Vet. App. 352 (1997))
Effective date for service connection award did not relate back to day after veteran’s separation from military.
-- Williams v. Gober - Docket No. 95-1184 (10 Vet. App. 447 (1997))
Unappealed regional office (RO) decision denying claim for service connection was not subject to claim of
clear and unmistakable error (CUE).
-- Dittrich v. West – Docket No. 96-1590 (11 Vet. App. 10 (1998))
Clear and convincing evidence of nonincurrence of chronic gastrointestinal disability during service rebutted
service connection presumption.
-- Velez v. West – Docket No. 96-47 (11 Vet. App. 148 (1998))
BVA decision denying service connection for back disorder was clearly erroneous.
-- Rose v. West – Docket No. 96-918 (11 Vet. App. 169 (1998))
Veteran did not establish clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in regional office (RO) decision denying service
connection for bilateral chorioretinitis.
-- Norris v. West – Docket No. 96-989 (11 Vet. App. 219 (1998))
Court of Veterans Appeals was without jurisdiction over issue of effective date of service-connection, absent
final decision on the issue by the BVA.
-- Henderson v. West – Docket No. 95-310 (11 Vet. App. 245 (1998))
Veteran’s military duties during occupation of Japan did not entitle him to presumptive service connection for
cancers.
-- McGuire v. West – Docket No. 96-215 (11 Vet. App. 274 (1998))
Statute barring compensation for disabilities which are the result of alcohol or substance abuse, does not
preclude an award of service connection for such disabilities.
-- Barela v. West – Docket No. 97-677 (11 Vet. App. 280 (1998))
BVA must address mandatory factors for adjudication claim based on exposure to ionizing radiation.
-- Hilkert v. West – Docket No. 96-208 (11 Vet. App. 284 (1998))
125
Veteran’s claims for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus were not well grounded.
-- Wade v. West – Docket No. 97-1184 (11 Vet. App. 302 (1998))
Medical article was too general to satisfy nexus element of a well-grounded service connection claim.
-- Sacks v. West – Docket No. 97-1336 (11 Vet. App. 314 (1998))
BVA provided inadequate bases for decision denying service connection for loss of teeth.
-- Simington v. West – Docket No. 95-948 (11 Vet. App. 41 (1998))
Veteran submitted well-grounded claim for service connection for psychiatric disorder based on experiences
aboard naval vessel during nuclear test.
-- Smith v. West – Docket No. 97-329 (11 Vet. App. 56 (1998))
Claims for non-listed conditions allegedly caused by exposure to radiation remanded to Board of Veterans’
Appeals (BVA).
-- Hardin v. West – Docket No. 95-61 (11 Vet. App. 74 (1998))
Evidence did not support BVA conclusion that veterans psychiatric condition existed prior to service.
-- Miller v. West – Docket No. 97-601 (11 Vet. App. 345 (1998))
Service connection claim had to be remanded for failure to make adequate findings with regard to whether
veteran had engaged in combat.
-- Gaines v. West – Docket No. 97-39 (11 Vet. App. 353 (1998))
Regulatory change in an evidentiary burden did not constitute new and material evidence warranting reopening
of claim.
-- Anglin v. West – Docket No. 96-704 (11 Vet. App. 361 (1998))
Veteran submitted a well-grounded claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.
-- Hernandez-Toyens v. West – Docket No. 97-1054 (11 Vet. App. 379 (1998))
BVA did not violate principles of fair process by not removing Board medical advisor opinions (BMAOs) from
a claims file.
-- Boutwell v. West – Docket No. 96-1447 (11 Vet. App. 387 (1998))
Inadequate analysis of evidence required remand of service connection claim for post-traumatic stress disorder.
-- YR v. West – Docket No. 97-778 (11 Vet. App. 393 (1998))
Veteran could not establish service connection claim for knee disability or psychiatric condition allegedly
incurred during his second period of service.
-- Mercado-Martinez v. West – Docket No. 96-1596 (11 Vet. App. 415 (1998))
Statute confers a right to an independent medical opinion from an expert not employed by the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
-- Winsett v. West – Docket No. 95-1109 (11 Vet. App. 420 (1998))
Claim of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Was not well grounded.
-- Samuels v. West – Docket No. 96-402 (11 Vet. App. 433 (1998))
126
Denial of service connection for PTSD was not clearly erroneous.
-- Fossie v. West – Docket No. 96-1695 (12 Vet. App. 1 (1998))
BVA had plausible basis for denying service connection for knee disorder as secondary to service-connected
pes planus.
-- Evans v. West – Docket No. 96-1574 (12 Vet. App. 22 (1998))
Veteran failed to raise secondary service connection claim.
-- Brannon v. West – Docket No. 96-282 (12 Vet. App. 32 (1998))
NOD raised all possible lower-extremity conditions secondary to bilateral pes planus.
-- Buckley v. West – Docket No. 96-1764
Regulation concerning radiation claims construed.
-- Hilkert v. West – Docket No. 96-208 (12 Vet.App. 145 (1999))
Dockets’ letter satisfied nexus prong of well-grounded claim test.
-- McCartt v. West – Docket No. 97-1831 (12 Vet. App. 164 (1999))
Statute lightening evidentiary burden for combat veterans construed.
-- Arms v. West – Docket No. 96-1214 (12 Vet. App. 188 (1999))
Veteran failed to establish service connection for lower back condition.
-- Hickson v. West – Docket No. 96-1669 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999))
Board’s finding that presumption of soundness was rebutted was arbitrary and capricious.
-- Vanerson v. West – Docket No. 97-1582 12 Vet. App. 254 (1999))
Remand of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claim was warranted.
-- Patton v. West – Docket No. 97-828 12 Vet. App. 272 (1999))
Service connection claim for bilateral knee condition was not well grounded.
-- Clyburn v. West – Docket No. 97-1321 12 Vet. App. 296 (1999))
It was error to ignore medical opinion of veteran who was licensed chiropractor.
-- Pond v. West – Docket No. 97-1780 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999))
Service connection claim for asbestosis was not well grounded.
-- Nolen v. West – Docket No. 96-1756 (12 Vet. App. 347 (1999))
Claim for secondary service connection was not well grounded.
-- Jones v. West – Docket No. 96-1253 (12 Vet. App. 383 1999))
Evidence of preexisting respiratory condition rebutted presumption of soundness.
-- Gahman v. West – Docket No. 96-1303 (12 Vet. App. 406 (1999))
Service connection claim for knee condition was not well grounded.
127
-- McManaway v. West - Docket No. 97-280 (13 Vet. App. 60 (1999))
Claims for seizure and neck disorders were not well grounded.
-- Voerth v. West – Docket No. 95-904 (13 Vet. App. 117 (1999))
Veteran’s death from pulmonary fibrosis was not service connected.
-- Dyment v. West – Docket No. 96-691 (13 Vet. App. 141 (1999))
Window’s service connection claims were not well-grounded.
-- Davis v. West – Docket No. 97-1057 (13 Vet. App. 178 (1999))
Secondary service connection claims were not well grounded.
-- McQueen v. West – Docket No. 96-403 (13 Vet. App. 237 (1999))
VA was bound by determination of Army Correction Board.
-- Spencer v. West – Docket No. 98-363 (13 Vet. App. 376 (2000))
Service connection claims were not well grounded.
-- Harris v. West – Docket No. 99-53 (13 Vet. App. 509 (2000))
Service-connection claim for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was well grounded.
-- Harth v. West – Docket No. 98-2061 (14 Vet. App., 1 (2000))
Service connection claim under Gulf War statute were no well-grounded.
-- Neumann v. West – Docket No. 98-1410 (14 Vet. App., 12 (2000))
Any breach of duty to assist veteran was not sufficient to have tolled finality of regional office decision.
-- Simmons v. West – Docket No.98-354 (14 Vet. App., 84 (2000))
Board failed to provide adequate reasons for denial of service connection.
-- Stone v. Gober – Docket No. 99-347 (14 Vet. App., 116 (2000))
Denial of services connection was not clearly erroneous.
-- Wensch v. Principi – Docket No. 99-2210 (15 Vet. App., 362 (2001))
Veteran claiming service connection for PTSD sufficiently corroborated noncombat stressor.
-- Pentecost v. Principi – Docket No. 00-2083 ( 16 Vet. App., 124 (2002))
Medical evidence preponderated against claim that heart disease was service connected.
-- Shoffner v. Principi – Docket No. 99-967 (16 Vet. App., 208 (2002))
Board failed to give adequate basis for denial of service connection.
-- Davis v. Principi – Docket No. 98-259 (17 Vet. App., 54 (2003))
Statute prohibiting the grant of service connection for tobacco-related death construed.
-- Kane v. Principi – Docket No. 02-0048 (17 Vet. App., 97 (2003))
VA did not present clear and unmistakable evidence required to rebut presumption of aggravation.
128
-- Cotant v. Principi – Docket. No. 00-2382 (17 Vet. App., 116 (2003))
Evidentiary requirement of regulation governing service connection fro PTSD is valid.
-- Moran v. Principi – Docket No. 99-754 (17 Vet. App., 149 (2003))
Board failed to provide adequate statement of reasons for not reopening service connection claim.
-- Fortuck v. Principi – Docket No. 01-345 (17 Vet. App., 173 (2003))
Service connection case remanded for Board consideration of presumption of soundness argument.
-- Martin v. Principi – Docket No. 00-1330 (17 Vet. App. 324 (2003))
Rulings on notice requirements of VCAA are subject to statutory rule of prejudicial error.
-- Conway v. Principi – Docket No. 03-7072 (353 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
Board erred in determining that veteran claiming PTSD had not engaged in combat.
-- Sizemore v. Principi – Docket No. 02-1012 (18 Vet. App., 264 (2004))
Denial of service connection did not leave open an unadjudicated claim.
-- Bingham v. Principi – Docket No. 01-1865 (Cite as 18 Vet. App., 470 (2004))
Failure of entrance exam to reveal hearing defect did not create irrebuttable presumption of soundness.
-- Kent v. Principi – Docket No. 04-7062 (389 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2004))
SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS INSURANCE: One year eligibility for entitlement to Service Disabled
Veterans Insurance did not violate due process or equal protection rights.
-- Saunders v. Brown - Docket No. 91-516 (4 Vet. App. 320 (1993))
SERVICE VERIFICATION Secretary of Veterans Affairs was required to make second request for
verification of alleged veteran's service in armed forces, even though Secretary had been unable to verify
service two years earlier.
-- Sarmiento v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1013 (7 Vet. App. 80 (1994))
SHOULDER DISORDER Board of Veterans' Appeals was allowed to consider higher rating for veteran's
service-connected shoulder disorder based on greater limitation of motion from pain on use during flare-ups.
-- DeLuca v. Brown - Docket No. 94-242 (8 Vet. App. 202 (1995))
SHOULDER INJURY: Veteran's 30% rating for service-connected right shoulder condition was warranted.
-- Stanton v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1868 (5 Vet. App. 563 (1993))
Board must consider whether veteran was entitled to increased rating for his service-connected shoulder
disability due to pain and weakness, not just limitation of motion.
-- DeLuca v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1712 (6 Vet. App. 321 (1993))
SICKLE CELL ANEMIA: Widow failed to establish that there was direct causal relationship between
husband's service-connected sickle cell anemia and cause of death.
-- Utendahl v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-148 (1 Vet. App. 531 (1991))
129
SPINAL DISEASE: Veteran's own contentions linking his stenosis, sclerosis, and disc disease of lumbar
spine to service were insufficient to make claims well grounded.
-- Hollifield v. Brown - Docket No. 95-251 (9 Vet. App. 469 (1996))
SPOUSAL BENEFITS: Filipino veteran could not presume first wife was dead and thus claim for VA
benefits for second wife was not well grounded.
-- Brillo v. Brown - Docket No. 93-462 (7 Vet. App. 102 (1994))
Government's reliance upon regulation to consider her post-separation conduct in denying her status as
surviving spouse was substantially justified.
-- Gregory v. Brown - Docket No. 91-912 (7 Vet. App. 127 (1994))
STANDING: Veteran did not have standing to question validity of regulation providing total disability
compensation to one failing to meet schedular rating percentage.
-- Swan v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-75 (1 Vet. App. 20 (1990))
Veteran had standing to appeal from decision of Board of Veterans' Appeals because he was adversely affected
by decision even though it granted him some benefits.
-- Corchado v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-897 (1 Vet. App. 160 (1991))
Question whether veteran's emphysema was service connected was not issue capable of repetition yet evading
review, as required for exception to mootness doctrine.
-- Hudgins v. Brown - Docket No. 93-1153 (8 Vet. App. 365 (1995))
Veteran lacked standing to challenge constitutionality of attorney fee statue.
-- Matter of Stanley - Docket No. 94-587 (9 Vet. App. 203 (1996))
STATEMENT OF CASE: Secretary of Veterans Affairs failed to comply with requirements for mailing
statement of case to veteran and his representative.
-- Kuo v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1053 (2 Vet. App. 662 (1992))
STAY: Proceedings would be stayed pending disposition of similar case.
-- Clay v. Principi – Docket No. 01-482 (16 Vet. App., 445 (2002))
SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE: Secretary of Veterans Affairs was entitled to summary affirmance of denial by
Board of Veterans' Appeals of service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder.
-- Little v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-791 (1 Vet. App. 560 (1991))
Summary affirmance of Board of Veterans' Appeals decision denying claim was appropriate.
-- Wipprecht v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-559 (2 Vet. App. 131 (1992))
SURVIVING SPOUSES: Examination report was insufficient for purposes of evaluating surviving spouse's
disability.
-- Henry v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-877 (2 Vet. App. 506 (1992))
Board of Veterans Appeals failure to consider affidavit claimants fellow villagers that claimant lived
continuously with veteran until his death was error.
130
-- Vecina v. Brown - Docket No. 92-678 (6 Vet App. 519 (1994))
SURVIVING SPOUSE BENEFITS: Finding that spouse was at fault for separation and thus not entitled to
surviving spouse benefits was clearly erroneous.
-- Gregory v. Brown - Docket No. 91-912 (5 Vet. App. 108 (1993))
SURVIVOR'S BENEFITS: Regulatory subsections requiring that claimant file within 11 months of child's
16th birthday in order to be eligible for Restored Entitlement Program for Survivors benefits as of that date
were void.
-- Cole v. Derwinski - Docket No. 89-30 (2 Vet. App. 400 (1992))
Veteran's daughter was entitled to restored Entitlement Program for Survivors benefits retroactively to date of
father's death.
-- Skinner v. Brown - Docket No. 90-337 (4 Vet. App. 141 (1993))
SUSPENDED PAYMENTS: Regulation denying lump-sum payment of benefits suspended during veteran's
incompetency to veterans who met conditions for payment, but were rerated incompetent before payment was
made, was invalid.
-- Felton v. Brown - Docket No. 90-965 (4 Vet. App. 363 (1993))
THROMBOPHLEBITIS: Remand was required of veteran's claim for increased rating for thrombophlebitis.
-- Hayes v. Brown - Docket No. 94-323 ((9 Vet. App. 67 (1996))
TIME LIMITS: Only upon good faith attempt at compliance with court order and upon showing of good
cause will extension of time be granted in the future under court rules governing extension of time.
-- Tucker v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-832 (2 Vet. App. 5 (1991))
TINNITUS: There was no plausible basis in record for BVA decision that tinnitus was caused by disease
rather than in service acoustic trauma.
-- Bucklinger v. Brown - Docket No. 92-273 (5 Vet. App. 435 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals' decision to apply diagnostic code for rhinitis to veteran's tinnitus was arbitrary and
capricious.
-- Butts v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1688 (5 Vet. App. 532 (1993))
TOTAL DISABILITY: Service connection claim for rheumatoid arthritis was not inextricably intertwined
with claim for total disability rating based on individual unemployability so as to preclude review.
-- Holland v. Brown - Docket No. 92-728 (6 Vet. App. 443 (1994))
Board of Veterans' Appeals clearly erred in deciding that veteran with service-connected narcolepsy was not
entitled to total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability.
-- James v. Brown - Docket No. 93-392 (7 Vet. App. 495 (1995))
TOURETTE'S SYNDROME: Veteran's Tourette's syndrome was present during service.
-- Hanson v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-781 (3 Vet. App. 65(1992))
TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT: Board of Veterans' Appeals erred by failing to consider and discuss
adequately provisions pertaining to travel reimbursement.
131
-- Allday v. Brown - Docket No. 93-644 (7 Vet. App. 517 (1995))
UNAUTHORIZED SERVICES: BVA's failure to adequately develop record as to whether veteran's
condition was of such severity that it qualified as medical emergency as required for reimbursement for
unauthorized services warranted remand.
-- Hennessey v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1233 (7 Vet. App. 143 (1994))
UNAUTHORIZED TREATMENT: Veteran was not entitled to reimbursement for unauthorized treatment
received at non-Department of Veterans Affairs hospital.
-- Smith v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-790 (2 Vet. App. 378 (1992))
Claimant was not entitled to reimbursement by VA for cost of unauthorized medical services received by his
veteran brother for treatment of nonservice-connected disability before his death.
-- Hayes v. Brown - Docket No. 93-202 (6 Vet. App. 66 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for rejecting evidence of veteran's
physician in support of his claim for payment of unauthorized medical treatment.
-- Paris v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1364 (6 Vet. App. 75 (1993))
UNEMPLOYABILITY: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for rejecting
medical testimony that veteran was precluded from substantially gainful employment.
-- Hicks v. Principi - Docket No. 91-323 (4 Vet. App. 2 (1993))
Veteran with service-connected eye injuries was entitled to total disability rating based upon individual
unemployability.
-- Beaty v. Brown - Docket No. 92-730 (6 Vet. App. 532 (1994))
Veteran entitled to remand for BVA to consider whether he was entitled to total disability rating based on
individual unemployability where BVA disregarded evidence that veteran was unable to maintain employment.
-- Cox v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1335 (6 Vet. App. 459 (1994))
Where Postal Service and New York State Department of Labor had determined veteran was unemployable,
there was not plausible basis for conclusion of Board of Veterans' Appeals that veteran could engage in
substantially gainful employment.
-- Brown v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1388 (4 Vet. App. 307 (1993))
Veteran who had 80% service connected disability rating was not entitled to total disability rating based on
individual unemployability.
-- Van Hoose v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1645 (4 Vet. App. 361 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals applied incorrect standard in assigning effective date for claimant's total disability
compensation based on unemployability.
-- Wood v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-429 (1 Vet. App. 367 (1991))
Records before Board of Veterans' Appeals were inadequate on unemployability issue, in light of failure of VA
to obtain veteran's private medical record before conducting medical examination.
-- Martin v. Brown - Docket No. 90-1248 (4 Vet. App. 136 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in not having carried individual unemployability claim to full adjudication.
132
-- Calabrese v. Brown - Docket No. 91-1655 (4 Vet. App. 223 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals improperly failed to address veteran's claim of total and permanent disability due to
individual unemployability.
-- Fanning v. Brown - Docket No. 91-316 (4 Vet. App. 225 (1993))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to consider adequately all evidence in denying total rating based on
individual unemployability.
-- Foster v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1219 (4 Vet. App. 35 (1993))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veteran' Appeals to fully consider veteran's claim for individual
unemployability.
-- Landicho v. Principi - Docket No. 90-1150 (4 Vet. App. 96 (1993))
Remand was required to enable Board to consider veteran's claim of 100 percent rating based upon individual
unemployability.
-- Cleary v. Principi - Docket No. 91-2006 (3 Vet. App. 495 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to reassess veteran's claim for individual
unemployability.
-- Fluharty v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-676 (2 Vet. App. 409 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals exaggerated veteran's level of education in denying him individual unemployability.
-- Sheed v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-256 (2 Vet. App. 255 (1992))
Objective and subjective criteria may both be considered on veteran's claim of unemployability.
-- Hatlestad v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-103 (3 Vet. App. 213 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to articulate reasons or bases for its denial of total
disability rating based on individual unemployability.
-- Pratt v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-955 (3 Vet. App. 269 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its denial of veteran's claim for total
disability rating based on unemployability.
-- Collins v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-995 (3 Vet. App. 290 (1992))
Board of Veterans' Appeals erred in failing to address veteran's claim that he was unemployable due to serviceconnected disabilities.
-- Sanders v. Principi - Docket No. 91-1594 (3 Vet. App. 334 (1992))
Remand was required to enable Board of Veterans' Appeals to provide explanation for its rejection of
unrebutted opinion of treating physician that veteran was totally disabled for employment.
-- Sawchik v. Principi - Docket No. 91-336 (3 Vet. App. 337 (1992))
Failure of Board of Veterans' Appeals to discuss all evidence and material of record on individual
unemployability claim warranted remand.
-- Smith v. Principi - Docket No. 91-871 (3 Vet. App. 378 (1992))
133
Record supported Board of Veterans' Appeals' denial of claim for total rating for compensation purposes based
on individual unemployability.
-- Evans v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-127 (3 Vet. App. 1 (1991))
Board failed to address credibility of veteran's claim that special allowances had been made for him at his place
of employment when it stated that veteran was not rendered unable to pursue some form of substantially gainful
employment.
-- Wade v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-1861 (3 Vet. App. 70 (1992))
Remand was required to Board of Veterans' Appeals on issue of unemployability.
-- South v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-574 (2 Vet. App. 414 (1992))
VA HOSPITALIZATION: Board of Veterans' Appeals failed to make specific factual findings necessary to
determine entitlement to benefits for injury sustained as a result of VA hospitalization, requiring remand.
-- Davis v. Derwinski-Docket No. 90-611 (2 Vet. App. 276 (1992))
VETERAN: Naturalized citizen who was injured while he was a 13 year-old Hungarian civilian citizen during
World War II was not a "veteran" for purposes of eligibility for disability compensation.
-- Selley v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1112 (6 Vet. App. 196 (1994))
VETERANS: Statute which excludes some Philippine World War II veterans from certain veterans benefits is
constitutional.
-- Dela Pena v. Derwinski - Docket No. 91-41 (2 Vet. App. 80 (1992))
VETERAN'S STATUS: Evidence supported determination that serviceman's discharge was under
dishonorable conditions and that he was not a veteran so that wife was ineligible for dependency and indemnity
compensation benefits.
-- Rogers v. Derwinski - Docket No. 90-1434 (2 Vet. App. 419 (1992))
Regulation defining veteran status, which did not limit denial of that status to those receiving dishonorable
discharges, was valid.
-- Camarena v. Brown - Docket No. 93-363 (6 Vet. App. 565 (1994))
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION: It was not violation of due process to deny veteran vocational
rehabilitation benefits for nondegree flight training.
-- Clarke, v. Brown - Docket No. 94-1087 (10 Vet. App. 20 (1997))
WAIVER OF OVERPAYMENT: Board of Veterans' Appeals evaluation of whether recovery of overpayment
should be waived was inadequate requiring remand.
-- Cullen v. Brown - Docket No. 92-1300 (5 Vet. App. 510 (1993))
WELL-GROUNDED CLAIMS: Whether VA examination should be conducted is an issue that arises only
where a claim has already been determined to be well grounded.
-- Slater v. Brown - Docket No. 94-713 (9 Vet. App. 240 (1996))
WIDOW'S BENEFITS: Widow submitted new and material evidence warranting reopening of previously
disallowed claim for recognition as veteran's surviving spouse.
-- Camphor v. Brown - Docket No. 92-631 (5 Vet. App. 514 (1993))
134
WILLFUL MISCONDUCT: Board of Veterans' Appeals' failure to indicate whether it accorded any weight
to statutory line-of-duty presumption required remand of its decision.
-- Myore v. Brown - Docket No. 94-255 (9 Vet. App. 498 (1996))
WRIST WOUND: Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied of veteran’s claim for increased disability rating above
10% for service-connected wrist wound was not clearly erroneous.
-- Johnston v. Brown - Docket No. 94-651 (10 Vet. App. 80 (1997))
WRITS: Veteran whose service connection claim had been remanded four times was not entitled to writ
of mandamus directing Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) to issue decision.
-- Nash v. West – Docket No. 97-749 (11 Vet. App. 91 (1998))
Petitioner was not entitled to writ of mandamus allowing him to apply for VA benefits.
-- Butler v. West – Docket No. 98-595 (12 Vet. App. 7 (1998))
135
WORDS & PHRASES
(edited 3/17/05)
A PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED
St. Patrick Hosp. v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 55, 56
BAD FAITH
East v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 34, 40
ABSURD RESULT
Zang v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 246, 252
BENEFIT
Zimick v. West, Vet. App., 11 Vet. App. 45
ACCRUED BENEFITS
Martin V. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 272, 274
Jones V. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 558, 560
Wilkes v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App., 237
Bonny v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App., 504
BENEFITS AWARDED BUT UNPAID
Bonny v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App., 504
BENEFIT-OF-THE-DOUBT
Grantham v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 228, 235
Hayes v. Brown, 5, Vet. App. 60, 69
ACTUAL EMPLOYABILITY
Faust v. West, Vet. App., 13 Vet. App. 342
BENEFIT-OF-THE-DOUBT DOCTRINE
Shoemaker v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 248, 255
Whipp v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 453, 455
Sussex v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 526, 529
ADVERSARY
Smith v. West, Vet.App., 13 Vet. App. 525
AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE
Yabut v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 79, 84
BILL OF ATTAINDER
Latham v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 265, 268
AGENCY
Wisner v. West, Vet.App., 12 Vet.App. 330
Fritz v. Principi, C.A. Fed., 264 F.3d 1372
BUDDY LETTER
Evans v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 193, 195
AGGRAVATION IN SERVICE
Jensen v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 304, 307
BURDEN OF PROOF
Doria v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 157, 163
APPARENT ENTITLEMENT
Westberry v. Principi, C.A. Fed., 255 F. 3d 1377
CATALYST THEORY
Chandler v. Gober, Vet. App., 11 Vet. App. 6
Lematta v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 504, 509
Weierbach v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 486
APPEALS
Livesay v. Principi, Vet. App., 15 Vet.App. 165
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES
Engelke, v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 396,400
APPLICATION
Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 78
CHILD
Burch v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 512, 513
Burris v. Principi, Vet. App., 15 Vet. App. 348
CHILD BORN OF THE MARRIAGE
Tapuro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 154, 155
APPLICATION THEREFOR
Livesay v. Principi, Vet. App., 15 Vet.App. 165
APPROXIMATE BALANCE
Ortiz v. Principi, C.A.Fed., 274 F.3d 1361
CLAIMANT
Aguilar v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 21, 23
Sarmiento v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 80, 83
ARMED SERVICES
Kirwin v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 148, 152
136
Holland v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 443, 447
Cox v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 459, 460
West v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 70, 75
McGraw v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 138, 142
Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88, 92
Nix v. Brown, 4 Vet., App. 462, 466
McRae v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 229, 234
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 509
CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE
Graves v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 166, 171
Greyzck v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 288
CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE ERROR
Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App., 310, 313
Akins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 228, 231
Newman v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 99, 103
Olson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 430,433
Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 43
Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 246
Rykhus v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 354,357
Flash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 332, 338
Winslow v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 469, 474
Johnson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 508, 511
Berger v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 166, 169
Washington v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 391. 393
Norris v. West, Vet. App. 11 Vet. App. 219
Greyzck v. West, Vet. App. 12 Vet. App. 288
Morris v. West, Vet. App. 13 Vet. App. 94
Cole v. West, Vet. App. 13 Vet. App. 268
Simmons v. West, Vet. App., 13 Vet App. 501
Simmons v. West, Vet. App., 14 Vet. App. 84
Livesay v. Principi, Vet. App., 15 Vet. App. 165
Cook v. Principi, C.A.Fed., 318 F.3d 1334
Andrews v. Principi, Vet. App., 18 Vet. App. 177
Natali v. Principi, C.A.Fed., 375 F.3d 1375
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS RULE
Fleshman v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 406, 411
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS STANDARD OF
REVIEW
Hayes v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 67, 72
Turco v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 222, 224
CLEAR ERROR
Forshey v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 71
COLLATERAL ORDER EXCEMPTION
Caeser v. West, C.A. Fed.,195 F.3d 1373
COMPENSATION
Osborne v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 368, 369
CONTRIBUTORY CAUSE OF DEATH
Barnett v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1, 4
Ventigan v. Brown, 9 vet. App. 34, 36
COUNTABLE ANNUAL INCOME
Springer v. West, Vet. App., 11 Vet. App. 38
CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE
Akins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 228, 231
COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION
In re A Motion For A Standing Order,
1 Vet. App. 555, 559
CLEAR ERROR
Forshey v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 71
CLEARLY ERRONEOUS
Look v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 157, 162
Hersey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 91, 94
Blackburn v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 395, 398
Chisem v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 169, 174
Combee v. Principi, 4, Vet. App. 78, 95
Wilson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 103, 107
Dilles v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 88, 90
Pefianco v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 226, 228
Horowitz v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 217, 221
White v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 247, 252
Turner v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 256, 258
CREDIBLE TESTIMONY
Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511
DATE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
DETERMINATION OF ENTITLEMENT
McCay v. Brown, C.A.Fed., 106 F.3d 1577, 1579
DECISION
Maggitt v. West,C.A.Fed., 202 F.3d 1370
DEFECT
Winn v. Brown, 8 Vet App. 510, 516
137
FINALITY DOCTRINE
Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 182
DIRECT SERVICE CONNECTION
Combee v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 78, 84
FOR COMPENSATION PURPOSES
Salgado v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 316, 318
FURNISHED
Montalvo v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 312, 314
DISABILITY
Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448
DOCTRINE OF LAW OF THE CASE
Augustine v. Principi, C.A.Fed., 343 F.3d 1334
GENERAL RULE OF INDIVISIBILITY
Losh v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 87, 89
DUTY TO ASSIST
Triplette v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 45, 50
Goss v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 109, 114
Holoway v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 454, 456
GRAVE PROCEDURAL ERROR
Tetro v. Gober, Vet. App., 14 Vet. App. 100
Simmons v. West, Vet. App., 14 Vet. App. 84
ELIGIBLE PERSON
Thompson v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 436, 438
HARMLESS ERROR
Schleis v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 415, 418
ENGAGED IN COMBAT WITH THE
ENEMY
Davis v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 51, 55
IN CONTEXT OF
Vanderpool v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 273, 276
D'Amato v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 481, 485
EVIDENCE
Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 78
Pierce v. Principi, C.A.Fed., 240 F.3d 1348
IN THE RECORD
Lynch v. Gober, Vet. App., 11 vet. App. 22
INCOME
Martin v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 272, 274
EX POST FACTO LAW
Latham v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 265, 268
IMPLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT
Schism v. U.S., C.A. Fed. (Fla.), F.3d 1280
EXTREMELY UNFAVORABLE
ANKYLOSIS
Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 218, 225
IN THE PURSUIT OF A COURS OF
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION
Cottle v. Principi, Vet.App., 14 Vet.App. 329
FILED
Jaquay v. West, Vet. App., 11 Vet. App. 67
INSANE PERSON
Struck v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 145, 152
FINAL AND BINDING AGENCY DECISION
Wilson v. West, Vet. App., 11 Vet. App. 383
INTERPRETIVE RULE
Splane v. West, C.A. Fed., 216 F.3d 1058
National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates,
Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, C.A.Fed.,
260 F.3d 1365
FINAL DECISION
Stanley v. Principi, C.A. Fed., 283 F .3d 1350
Breeden v. Principi, Vet. App., 17 Vet. App. 475
Jones v. Principi, C.A. Fed., 118 Fed. Appx. 508
FINAL JUDGEMENT
Stillwell v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 291, 300
Hayslip v. Principi, C.A. Fed., 364 F.3d 1321
LAW OF THE CASE
Browder v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 268, 270
Leopoldo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 33, 34
Means v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 482, 483
138
Halpern v. Principi, C.A. Fed., 384 F.3d 1297
Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 402
Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88, 97
Taylor v. Brown, 4 vet. App. 473, 475
YT v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 195, 200
Dolan v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 358, 361
Daniels. v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 348, 351
Nici v Brown, 9 Vet. App. 494, 496
Lee v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 336, 338
MAIL
Davis v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 298, 303
Leo v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 410, 412
Gantt. v. West, Vet. App. 11 Vet. App. 264
Gantt v. West, Vet. App. 11 Vet. App. 262
MATERIAL
Wray v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 488, 492
Reyes v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 113, 115
West v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 70, 74
Solomon v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 396, 399
Nichols v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 317, 320
Poor v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 314, 316
Guimond v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 69, 71
Ramirez v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 6, 8
Fluker v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 296, 298
Abbott v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 197, 201
Lewis v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 151, 153
Goodsell v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 36, 40
Smith v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 378, 381
Stoneking v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 103, 105
Miller v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 90, 92
St. Arbor v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 81, 82
Poe v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 55, 56
Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181, 186
Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 217, 218
Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 389
Forrest v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 276, 278
Minshall v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 195, 197
Ashley v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 75, 77
Rowell v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 9, 18
Stephens v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 513, 520
Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 512
Chisholm v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 420, 421
Bellavance v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 402, 405
Robie v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 612, 614
Sagainza v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 575, 579
Yabut v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 79, 82
Kightly v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 200, 204
Glynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 523, 527
Jensen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 27, 28
Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216, 220
Barnett v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1, 5
Carroll v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 128, 132
Blackburn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1, 5
Blackburn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 97, 102
MATERIAL ERROR
Losh v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 79, 84
Losh v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 87, 90
Neves v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 177, 180
MATERIAL EVIDENCE
Jensen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 27, 28
McGraw v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 138, 142
Lizaso v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 380,385
Camphor v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 514, 518
Sugar v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 265, 267
Sklar v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 140, 145
Wilson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 11, 13
Ingram v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 5, 6
Chisem v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 322, 326
Sanchez v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 330, 333
Ascherl v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 371, 376
Stokes v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 336
Laposky v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 331, 333
Hadsell v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 208
Chisem v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 169, 173
Triplette v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 45, 49
Baritsky v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 41, 43
Farris v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 6, 8
Saylock v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 394, 395
Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 547
Paller v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 535, 538
Morton v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 508, 509
Cochran v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 649, 651
Wilson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 11, 13
Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 460
Elkins v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 474, 477
White v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 247, 251
Wilkinson v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 263, 267
Flash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 332, 339
Mata v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 485, 487
Marcoux v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 289, 291
Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 283
Holifield v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 469,473
139
Marcoux v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 3, 5
Ashford v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 120, 122
Shockley v. West, Vet. App., 11 Vet. App. 208
Thaxton v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 442, 444
Heebner v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 423, 426
Schleis v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 415, 417
Pruitt v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 83, 85
Smith v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 587, 588
Davis v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 51, 54
Annoni v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 463, 467
Davis v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 51, 54
Zevalkink v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 483, 493
Rykhus v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 483, 493
Flash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 332, 339
Wilkinson v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 263, 267
Blackburn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 97, 102
D'Amato v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 481, 484
Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470
Mercado-Martinez v. 11 Vet. App. 415
Boggs v. West, 11 Vet. App. 334
Hickson v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 247
MATTER
Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 391
MEDICAL DETERMINATIONS
Meakin v. West, Vet. App., 11 Vet. App. 183
MEDICAL JUDGMENT
Yabut v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 79, 84
MENTAL UNSOUNDNESS
Elkins v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 391,397
NEW
Solomon v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 396, 399
Nichols v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 317, 320
Poor v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 314, 316
Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216, 220
Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 389
Minshall v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 195, 197
Ashley v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 75, 77
Bellavance v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 402, 205
Poe v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 55, 56
Stephens v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 513, 520
Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 512
Robie v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 612, 614
Bartow v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 657, 659
Guimond v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 69, 71
Yabut v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 79, 82
Bielby v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 260, 264
Carroll v. Brown, 8 vet. App. 128, 132
Franko v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 502, 506
Taylor v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 473, 475
Dolan v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 358, 361
Anderson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 542, 545
Routen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 183, 186
NEW EVIDENCE
Hollifield v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 469, 473
Daniels v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 348, 351
Marcoux v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 289, 291
Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 283
Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88, 97
Spalding v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 6, 10
Marcoux v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 3, 5
Ashford v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 120, 122
Shockley v. West, Vet. App. 11 Vet. App. 208
NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE
Reyes v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 113, 115
Rykhus v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 354, 357
Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313
Budnik v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 185, 187
Quinn v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 23, 25
Pruitt v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 83, 85
Rowell v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 9, 18
Hill v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 540, 541
Case v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 592, 594
Wallace v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 537, 538
Mullins v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 522, 525
Gobber v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 470, 472
Harder v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 183, 187
Patton v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 272
Smith v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 312
NEW AND MATERIAL
Reyes v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 113, 115
Vanderpool v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 273, 276
Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225
Smith v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 205, 207
Tubianosa v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 181, 182
Montgomery v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 343, 345
Triplette v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 45, 49
NEW CASE
140
Pellerin v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 360, 361
Sears v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App. 267
Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 460
Pullerin v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 360, 361
Blackburn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 97, 102
Wilkinson v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 263, 267
Graves v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 522, 524
Mata v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 485, 487
Beausoleil v. Brown, 8 Vet App. 459, 462
Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 402
Elkins v. Brown, 8 vet. App. 391, 394
Flash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 332, 339
Wilkinson v. Brown, 8 vet. App. 263, 267
Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88, 97
Marcoux v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 289, 291
Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. app. 88, 97
Daniels v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 348, 351
Hollifield v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 469, 473
Ashford v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 120, 122
Spalding v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 6, 10
Marcoux v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 3,5
Shockley v. West, 11 Vet. App. 208
Smith v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 312
NEW EVIDENCE
Reyes v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 113, 115
West v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 70, 74
Villaruz v. Brown,, 7 Vet. App. 561, 564
Titular v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 354, 357
Titular v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 350, 353
White v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 247, 251
Lizaso v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 380, 385
Fluker v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 296, 298
Sugar v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 265, 267
Abbott v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 197, 201
Lewis v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 151, 153
Sklar v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 140, 145
Goodsell v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 36, 40
Wilson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 11, 13
Ingram v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 5, 6
Cochran v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 649, 651
Smith v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 378, 381
Chisem v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 322, 326
Stoneking v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 103, 105
Miller v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 90, 92
St. Arbor v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 81, 82
Sanchez v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 330, 333
Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181, 186
Ascherl v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 371, 376
Laposky v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 331, 333
McGraw v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 138, 142
Jensen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 27, 28
Hadsell v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 208
Chisem v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 169, 173
Triplette v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 45, 49
Baritsky v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 41, 43
Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 547
Paller v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 535, 538
Morton v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 508, 509
Chisholm v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 420, 421
Saylock v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 394, 395
Rowell v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 9, 18
Farris v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 6, 8
Lewis v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 151, 153
Sklar v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 140, 145
Goodsell v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 36, 40
Wilson v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 11, 13
Ingram v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 5
Elkins v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 474, 477
ON THE MERITS
Winslow v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 469, 472
OR ENTITLED TO RECEIVE
Hix v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 138
ORDER OF A COURT
In re A Motion For A Standing Order,
1 Vet. App. 555, 559
OTHER EVIDENCE
McColley v. West, Vet. App., 13 Vet. App.553
PARTICULAR PERSONAL FUNCTION
Turco v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 222, 224
PENDING
Tilton v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 23, 25
Jones v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 101, 103
Taylor v. West, 11 Vet. App. 206
PERIOD OF WAR
Mason v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App. 129
PERIODIC MONETARY BENEFIT
Gillis v. West, 11 Vet. App. 441
141
PRINCIPLE CAUSE OF DEATH
Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 189, 192
Barnett v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1, 4
PERMANENTLY AND TOTALLY
DISABLED
Dilles v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 88, 90
PROPERLY ADDRESSED
Santoro v. Principi, C.A. Fed., 274 F. 3d 1366
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469
PYRAMIDING
Fanning v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 225, 231
PERTINENT
Martin v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 136, 140
RADIATION EXPOSED VETERAN
Hardin v. West, Vet. App., 11 Vet. App. 74
RADIOGENIC DISEASE
Hardin v. West,. Vet. App., 11 vet. App. 74
Combee v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 78, 87
PLAUSIBLE
Kirwin v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 148, 152
PLAUSIBLE BASIS IN THE RECORD
Brown v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 307, 309
RATIONAL BASIS
Giancaterino v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 555, 559
POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES
Pierre v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 92
REASONABLENESS
Bowyer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 549, 551
PREDICATED ON ADMINISTRATIVE
ERROR
McCormick v. Principi, Vet.App., 16
Vet.App.407
REASONS OR BASES
Whipp v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 453, 455
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
Ortiz v. Principi, C.A.Fed., 274 F3d. 1361
RECEIPT
Majeed v. Principi, Vet. App., 421
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY
Butler v. Principi, C.A.Fed., 244 F .3d 1337
Bernklau v. Principi, C.A.Fed., 291 F.3d 795
Miley v. Principi, C.A.Fed., 366 F.3d 1343
RECIEVED
Majeed v. Principi, Vet. App., 421
RECORD
Bowey v. West, C.A. Fed., 218 F.3d 1373
PREVAILING PARTY
Sumner v. Principi, Vet. App., 15 Vet. App. 256
Luyster v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App. 96
Flemming v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App. 52
D’Amico v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App. 190
Briddell v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App. 267
McManaway v. Principi, Vet. App., 16 Vet. App.
549
Halpern v. Principi, Vet. App., 17 Vet. App. 225
Rollins v. Principi, Vet. App., 17 Vet. App. 294
Abbey v. Principi, Vet. App., 17 Vet. App. 282
Johnson v. Principi, Vet. App., 17 Vet. App. 436
Evington v. Principi, Vet. App., 18 Vet. App. 331
Halpern v. Principi, C.A. Fed., 384 F.3d 1297
RELEVANT AND PROBATIVE
Tubianosa v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 181, 182
SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE
Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 510
SERVICE-CONNECTION
Kessel v. West, Vet. App., 13 Vet. App. 9
SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY
Owings v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 17, 19
SLAYER’S RULE
142
Lofton v. West, C.A.Fed., 198F.3d 846
Goss v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 109, 113
Epps v. Brown 9 Vet. App. 341, 343
Black v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 279, 283
Martin v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 394, 395
Brice v. West, 11Vet. App. 405
STARE DECISIS
National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates,
Inc. v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, C.A.Fed.,
260 F.3d 1365
WELL-GROUNDED CLAIM
Hill v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 570, 573
Smith v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 378, 380
Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81
Suttman v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 127, 132
Yabut v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 79, 82
Graves v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 166, 171
Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185, 189
Dean v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 449, 454
Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 50
Slater v. Brown, 9 Vet App. 240, 243
Meyer v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 425, 428
Black v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 279, 283
Smith v. West, Vet. App., 11 Vet. App. 56
Wade v. West. Vet. App. 11 Vet. App. 302
Hilkert v. West, Vet. App. 11 Vet. App. 284
Fossie v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 1
Mattern v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 222
Hickson v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 247
Patton v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 272
Nolen v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 347
Jones v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 383
Cumby v. West, Vet. App., 12 Vet. App. 363
Davis v. West, Vet. App., 13 Vet. App. 178
McQueen v. West, Vet. App., 13 Vet. App. 237
Hodges v. West, Vet. App., 13 Vet. App. 287
Harris v. West, Vet. App. 13 Vet. App. 178
Neumann v. West, Vet.App., 14Vet.App.12
Harth v. West, Vet.App., 14Vet.App. 1
McCormick v. Gober Vet App., 14 Vet. App. 39
Timberlake v. Gober,Vet. App., 14 Vet. App. 122
Summers v. Gober, C.A. Fed., 225 F.3d 129
SUBMIT
Grivois v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 100, 101
Jones v. West, Vet. App., 13 Vet. App. 129
SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION
Bowyer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 549, 551
SUBSTANTIALLY
Golliday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 249, 253
SUBSTANTIALLY GAINFUL OCCUPATION
Faust v. West, Vet. App. 13 Vet. App. 342
Roberson v. Principi, C.A. Fed., 251 F 3d. 1378
SUBSTANTIALLY JUSTIFIED
Olney v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 160, 162
SUBSTANTIVE APPEAL
Rowell v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 9, 17
SUBSTANTIVE RULE
Splane v. West, C.A.Fed.., 212 F3d 1265
SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION
Schroeder v. West, C.A.FED., 212 F.3d 1265
TREATING PHYSICIAN RULE
Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 471
VETERAN
Selley v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 196, 198
Camarena v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 565, 568
WILLFUL MISCONDUCT
Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 189, 193
Zang v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 246, 252
VETERAN STATUS
D’Amico v. West, C.A. Fed. 209 F.3d 1322
WELL GROUNDED
Poor v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 314, 317
Beausoleil v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 459, 463
Edenfield v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 384, 388
Woodson v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 352, 353
WRONGFUL
Lofton v. West, C.A. Fed., 198 F.3d 846
143