» Thun v. Peake 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008)
Four standards of review at the Veterans Court.
When appellate courts review the decisions of lower courts – or in administrative law where a Court like the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) reviews the decisions of the BVA, an administrative tribunal – they use “sta…
Read More
May 18th, 2022
Contributor: Chris Attig
Tags: 38 C.F.R. §20.1304, abuse of discretion, arbitrary or capricious, Butts v. Brown 5 Vet. App. 532 (1993) (en banc), clearly erroneous, de novo, Gilbert v. Derwinski 1 Vet App 49 (1990), Hersey v. Derwinski 2 Vet. App. 91 (1992), inadequate reasons and bases, not in accordance with the law, standards of review, Thun v. Peake 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008)
CAVC Docket Update: Appeals Submitted for CAVC Panel Decision and Oral Argument (June 2018)
In June 2018, it appears that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) has set 1 case for Panel Decisions and 4 cases for Oral Argument and Panel Decision. I do my best to seek out and find all cases submitted to a CAVC Panel or set for Oral A…
Read More
July 19th, 2018
Contributor: Chris Attig
Categories: Veterans Law Updates
Tags: 38 C.F.R. §3.114(a), 38 C.F.R. §3.344, 38 U.S.C. §5904, Abhinav Goel, attorney fees, Christian A. McTarnaghan, Christopher W. Brown, Clear and Unmistakeable Error (CUE), Debra L. Bernal, effective date, extra-schedular rating, Jenna E. Zellmer, John F. Cameron, Judge Joseph L. Toth, Judge Margaret Bartley, Judge Michael Allen, Judge William S. Greenberg, Kenneth H. Dojaquez, liberalizing law, Margaret E. Sorrenti, Michael G. Imber, ptsd, Snyder v. Nicholson 489 F.3d. 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2007), stabilized rating, Thun v. Peake 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008)
