Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2010/02/10/competent-evidence-versus-competent-medical-evidence-continuity-of-symptomatology-mccormick-v-principi-no-98-48/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:34:41+00:00

Document:
However, Savage[v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488 (1997),] and 3.303(b) require only that a claimant submit competent evidence of a nexus between his present disability and his postservice symptomatology, 38 C.F.R. 3.303(b); Savage, supra.
the continuity-of-symptomatology criteria from Savage, supra.Id. at 49-50 (first-sentence emphasis added).
Daniel G. Krasnegor, of Washington, D.C., with whom Peter J.
Meadows, of Miami Beach, Florida, was on the pleadings, for the appellant.
., were on the pleadings, for the appellee.
reasons that follow, the Court will grant the EAJA application in part.
injury or disease during his active service.
[Record] at 5 (emphasis added). However, Savage[v. Gober, 10 Vet.
postservice symptomatology, 38 C.F.R. 3.303(b); Savage, supra.
the continuity-of- symptomatology criteria from Savage, supra.
consistent with this opinion . . . .
Secretary’s request to reduce the number of hours. Reply at 5, 12.
applications seek a total $3,506.23 in additional fees and expenses.
Sumner v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 256 (2001) (en banc), Vaughn v.
remand he received in the case on the merits. Supplemental (Suppl.) Resp.
February 11, 2002, motion for leave to file a supplemental response.
EAJA jurisdictional content requirements. See ibid.
16 Vet.App. 267, 271-74 (2002); Smith (Shannon) v. Principi, 16 Vet.App.
71, 73-74 (2002); Cycholl, 15 Vet.App. at 359.
here by the Court “recogniz[ing] administrative error”), Sumner, 15 Vet.
Cullens, supra (Kramer, C.J., concurring); Mahl v. Principi, 15 Vet.
party stage the validity, type, or nature of the administrative error.
satisfied. Sumner, 15 Vet.App. at 265.
emphasis added)), (d)(1)(B); Cullens, 14 Vet.App. at 237-38; Lematta v.
237; see also Locher v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 535, 537 (1996); Stillwell v.
query is one of reasonableness “in law and fact”).
Vet.App. at 361; see also Elcyzyn v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 170, 176 (1996).
the EAJA.” Chesser, 11 Vet.App. at 501 (citing Hensley v.
Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983); Chiu v. United States, 948 F.
otherwise unproductive efforts”, Vidal, 8 Vet.App. at 493.
duty to his client to provide diligent representation.” Reply at 16.
application, from 149.60 to 119.60 hours.
defense of such subsection (a) application. See Rule 25.
In re: Rules 39, 41, and 42 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure, 15 Vet.
supplemental applications that were submitted with the motions. Cf.
issuance of this opinion, we will deny the Secretary’s motion as moot.
motion, or the appellant’s February 15, 2002, opposition motion.
manipulation to be disingenuous, and I respectfully dissent.
the Board erred in applying the continuity-of-symptomatology criteria.
remanded for compliance with the VBA letter. See McCormick, __ Vet.App.
at __, slip op. at 2.
error recognized by the Court in its advisory note.
case and turn it upside down to serve a particular result.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.