Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): entitlement claims. The VA’s new rule had the effect of reinterpreting § 1318 to prohibit hypothetical entitlement claims. See Tarver, 1373-74. In Rodriguez and Tarver, we applied the three-part test outlined in Princess Cruises to determine that § 3.22 could be applied retroactively to bar § 1318 claims based on a hypothetical entitlement theory. See Rodriguez, 511 F.3d at 1156 (finding that all three Princess Cruises factors weighed in favor of retroactive application of § 3.22, as amended in 2000, to claims for DIC benefits filed by survivors before the amendment took effect); Tarver, 557 F.3d at 1374-77 (finding that retroactive application of § 3.22 was permissible in a case “distinguishable from Rodriguez only . v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Ms. Kernea argues that because § 3.10(f)(3), 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing hixs holding that hypothetical entitlement claims were permitted under  1311a2 (B) holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda (C) recognizing hardship where plaintiff alleged it was being deprived of statutory entitlement (D) holding the state law claims were not preempted (E) holding that the husbands failure to argue his entitlement to attorneys fees under a prenuptial agreement at a hearing held on the issue of entitlement to attorneys fees constituted an abandonment of that claim
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs state claims were not preempted because defendant failed to show that these claims rested on standards other than those permitted by the fda