 Veteran's
Law Case Summaries
The following case summaries are notable as case law that Mark Lippman
both argued and
won to establish a precedent.
Federal Circuit Cases
1) Sanders v. Nicholson
487 F.3d 881 (Fed.Cir. 2007) (Court held
that the Secretary (not the veteran) bears the burden of proof to establish
that any defect in VCAA notice was harmless).
2) Barrett v. Principi (“Barrett I)
363 F.3d 1316 (Fed.Cir.
2004) (Court held that a veteran could assert mental incapacity as a basis
to toll or extend the deadline to file an appeal).
3) Barrett v. Nicholson (“Barrett II)
466 F.3d 1038 (Fed.Cir.
2006) (Court held that the Secretary has a duty to obtain a medical opinion
to determine whether a veteran’s alleged mental incapacity is severe
enough to toll the filing period for an appeal).
4) Durr v. Nicholson
400 F.3d 1376 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (Court held that
the contents and requirements of a Notice of Appeal must be liberally construed
in favor of veterans).
Veterans Court Cases
1) Chotta v. Peake
22 Vet.App. ___ (2008) (Court held that the VA’s
duty to assist in determining the level of disability for purposes of awarding
a rating may apply when a claimant prevails on a claim for clear and unmistakable
error (CUE) challenging the original VA decision denying service connection. Such
a duty to assist may include requiring the VA to develop medical evidence
through a retrospective medical evaluation.)
2) Ingram v. Nicholson
21 Vet.App. 232 (2007) (Court held, among
other things, that unadjudicated claims should not be treated as claims for
clear and unmistakable error (CUE). This decision makes it much easier
for veterans to obtain an earlier effective date for their disability awards).
3) Stefl v. Nicholson
21 Vet.App. 120 (2007) (Court held that, when
evaluating a veteran’s disability, VA medical examiners must consider
both presumptive and direct theories of service connection).
4) Roebuck v. Nicholson
20 Vet.App. 307 (2006) (Court held that a
claim is defined by the nature of the veteran’s disability, not by
the theories of service-connection).
5) Coker v. Nicholson
19 Vet.App. 439 (2006) (Court held that the
VA must liberally read a veteran’s informal claim for benefits, including
considering the medical records and other documents in the file).
|
