Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2010/09/22/thurber-v-brown-no-92-172-simultaneously-contested-claims/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:41:58+00:00

Document:
Leslie N. Thurber, pro se.
Counsel, and Peter M. Donawick were on the brief for appellee.
Before KRAMER, HOLDAWAY, and STEINBERG, Associate Judges.
the BVA decision and remand the matter.
1991). (At the time of the issuance of the BVA decision, Hatlestad v.
filed a supplemental counter designation of the record, see U.S. Vet. App.
make available to the Court “the complete medical text” of the treatise.
the claims folder. See Rogozinski v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 19 (1990).
became a part of the record before the Board.” Mot. of Appellant at 4.
pages of the textbook should be included in the record on appeal.
Mot. of Appellant at 1-2.
medical treatise to support its decision.
obtaining expert medical opinions to assist in the adjudication of claims.
medical experts who are not employees of the Department.
claimant to respond to the obtained opinion (see discussion of 38 C.F.R.
needed for equitable disposition of an appeal.
Pathology and request an opinion based on that material.
of Veterans Affairs. . . .
examinations; and . . . the manner and form of adjudications . . .”).
be allowed for a response. . . .
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. ù 7109(c)).
38 U.S.C.A. ù 5107(a), part III.C.ii., infra, and ù 501(a), supra.
BVA’s use of medical treatises. However, the Court, in Colvin, 1 Vet.App.
clearly support its ultimate conclusions. See [38 U.S.C.A.
U.S. 319, 333 (1976); Fugere v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 103, 108 (1990).
Walters v. National Assoc. of Radiation Survivors, 473 U.S.
305, 333 (1985). . . .
Fugere, 1 Vet.App. at 108; see Devine v. Cleland, 616 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir.
property right protected by the Fifth Amendment due process clause).
Cir. 1982) (applicant for federal rent subsidies); Kelly v. R.R.
Inc., 720 F.Supp. 934 (M.D.Ala. 1989).
he be afforded an opportunity to reply.” Id. at 411-12.
373 U.S. 83 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).
38 U.S.C.A. ù 5104(a) (West 1991); see Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.
to appeal in regular and in simultaneously contested claimsNext Hit. 38 C.F.R.
development and continuation of the denial of benefits, 38 C.F.R. ù 19.
appeal, appellant is provided “notice . . . and a period of 60 days . . .
only after affording the claimant an opportunity for a hearing.” 38 U.S.C.
to notification of the time and place of the hearing on appeal. 38 C.F.R.
certification of appeal and transfer of the appellate record to the BVA.
mail a copy of its written decision to the claimant. . . .” 38 U.S.C.A.
for reconsideration of a final BVA decision is granted. 38 C.F.R. ù 20.
process of law” upon the request of appellant, or on the BVA’s own motion.
38 C.F.R. ù 20.904 (1992).
thereto are to be included in the records.
arguments advanced by a claimant must be “included in the records.” Id.
medical examinations that address a claimant’s complaints); EF v.
employment, or other civilian records).
public inspection . . . .
38 C.F.R. ù 1.12. . . .
Op. G. C. Mem. (VA July 1, 1987).
submit rebuttal evidence . . . .
violated. See Wallace v. Bowen, 869 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1988); Gullo v.
Chemicals, Inc. v. FERC, 650 F.2d 687 (5th Cir. 1981); Marathon Oil v.
by taking matters out of context.” 56 F.R.D. 183, 201.
be made after judicial notice has been taken.
The procedure that the Court called for in Colvin . . .
a part of the record before this Court.” . . .
literature) is able to be determined.
applicability with respect to any other VA adjudications.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.