Source: https://hadit.com/tag/case-law/page/2/
Timestamp: 2020-07-02 05:24:41
Document Index: 296421645

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 19', '§ 5108', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 19', '§ 5108', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3695', '§ 3695', '§ 3031', '§ 3695', '§ 3695', '§ 3695', '§ 3031', '§ 3695', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 3']

Case law Archives » Page 2 of 15 » VA Disability Claims - HadIt.com
Single Judge Application; 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(a), “[i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim,” 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2018) (emphasis added); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2019). However, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) provides an exception to this rule. Paragraph (c)(1) provides, in pertinent part, “at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1);
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-4274THOMAS R. GOODE, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before MEREDITH, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.MEREDITH, Judge: The pro se appellant, Thomas R. Goode, appeals a … [Read more...] about Single Judge Application; 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(a), “[i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim,” 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2018) (emphasis added); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2019). However, 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) provides an exception to this rule. Paragraph (c)(1) provides, in pertinent part, “at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file relevant official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will reconsider the claim.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1);
Single Judge Application; Although there is no requirement that a medical opinion discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant, the Board, in relying on an opinion that does not do so, must discuss any additional favorable evidence to comply with its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994); Dennis v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 18, 22 (2007) (“The Court has 5 long held that merely listing the evidence before stating a conclusion does not constitute an adequate statement of reasons or bases.”);
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-4137PAUL RUSHING, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before MEREDITH, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.MEREDITH, Judge: The appellant, Paul Rushing, through counsel … [Read more...] about Single Judge Application; Although there is no requirement that a medical opinion discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant, the Board, in relying on an opinion that does not do so, must discuss any additional favorable evidence to comply with its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994); Dennis v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 18, 22 (2007) (“The Court has 5 long held that merely listing the evidence before stating a conclusion does not constitute an adequate statement of reasons or bases.”);
Carr v. Wilkie, No. 2019-2441 (Decided: June 11, 2020 ); VA education benefits; 38 U.S.C. § 3695, 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a)’s aggregate multi-program benefits cap does not preclude end-of-term extensions of benefits authorized under individual benefits programs; when a veteran’s Chapter 33 benefits are exhausted during a school semester, the VA must continue to pay benefits until the end of that semester. See id. §§ 3031(f), 3312(b), 3321(b)(2); veterans with service-connected disabilities receiving training and rehabilitation under Chapter 31 may exceed the 48-month cap to receive additional Chapter 31 benefits with the VA Secretary’s permission, see id. § 3695(b);
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SAMANTHA E. CARR, ROBERT M. CARR, Claimants-Appellants v. ROBERT WILKIE, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee 2019-2441 Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 16-3438, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch, Judge Joseph L. Toth.__________ Decided: June 11, … [Read more...] about Carr v. Wilkie, No. 2019-2441 (Decided: June 11, 2020 ); VA education benefits; 38 U.S.C. § 3695, 38 U.S.C. § 3695(a)’s aggregate multi-program benefits cap does not preclude end-of-term extensions of benefits authorized under individual benefits programs; when a veteran’s Chapter 33 benefits are exhausted during a school semester, the VA must continue to pay benefits until the end of that semester. See id. §§ 3031(f), 3312(b), 3321(b)(2); veterans with service-connected disabilities receiving training and rehabilitation under Chapter 31 may exceed the 48-month cap to receive additional Chapter 31 benefits with the VA Secretary’s permission, see id. § 3695(b);
Single Judge Application; joint disabilities; 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that “certain range of motion testing be conducted whenever possible in cases of joint disabilities.” Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet.App. 158, 164, 168(2016). The regulation specifies that “[t]he joints involved should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2019). “If for some reason the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary . . . , he or she should clearly explain why that is so.” Correia, 28 Vet.App. at 170;
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-1017NICHOLAS C. MAZZA, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before FALVEY, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.FALVEY, Judge: Army veteran Nicholas C. Mazza appeals an October … [Read more...] about Single Judge Application; joint disabilities; 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that “certain range of motion testing be conducted whenever possible in cases of joint disabilities.” Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet.App. 158, 164, 168(2016). The regulation specifies that “[t]he joints involved should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2019). “If for some reason the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary . . . , he or she should clearly explain why that is so.” Correia, 28 Vet.App. at 170;
Single Judge Application; common law marriage; 38 C.F.R. § 3.52; VA regulation recognizes that a common law marriage can be valid even in a jurisdiction that does not recognize such an arrangement;
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-3530CIRIE LAFRENIERE, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before GREENBERG, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.GREENBERG, Judge: The appellant pro se appeals an April 1, … [Read more...] about Single Judge Application; common law marriage; 38 C.F.R. § 3.52; VA regulation recognizes that a common law marriage can be valid even in a jurisdiction that does not recognize such an arrangement;
Has VA.gov/Ebenefits stalled