green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
101.7 score
“pjroof of direct service connection ... entails proof that exposure during service caused the malady that appears many years later”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hardin v. West
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
pjroof of direct service connection ... entails proof that exposure during service caused the malady that appears many years later
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jack L. Stover v. Denis McDonough
(2×)
Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1040 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Victor B. Skaar v. Robert L. Wilkie
No. 98-542, 98 Stat. 2725 (1984). 39 See Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet.App. 67, 71 (1997) (citing Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
191226-58536
App. 155, 162-64 (1997); Combee v. Brown, 34 F. 3d 1039, 1044 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
200519-85224
He is, however, not precluded from establishing service connection on a direct basis under Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1041-42 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
190905-32745
App. 40, 44 (1996); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
190814-20102
Moreover, even those disabilities that are diagnosed long after discharge may still be service connected on a direct basis if competent, credible, and probative evidence establishes that the disability is attributable to service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
200221-65030
See 38 U.S.C. § 1113 (b); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
190508-11463
Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043-1044 (Fed.Cir.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
190827-43075
See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
190206-3578
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
181107-956
App. 120, 124 (2007) (holding that the availability of presumptive service connection from some conditions based on exposure to Agent Orange does not preclude direct service connection for other conditions based on exposure to Agent Orange); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
181030-725
App. 120, 124 (2007) (holding that the availability of presumptive service connection from some conditions based on exposure to Agent Orange does not preclude direct service connection for other conditions based on exposure to Agent Orange); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
09-38 086
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1041-42 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
08-37 238
Notwithstanding the foregoing presumption, a claimant is not precluded from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation. 38 U.S.C. § 1113 (b); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
08-33 313
See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (2017); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
11-31 370
Disorders diagnosed after discharge will still be service connected if all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
11-12 540
Hypoxemia is not a disorder presumed to be associated with herbicide agent exposure, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that an appellant is not precluded from establishing service connection with proof of actual direct causation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
09-04 229
A disorder first diagnosed after discharge may be service connected if all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that it was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
12-33 038
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043-1044 (Fed.Cir.1994), rev'g in part Combee v. Principi, 4 Vet.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
11-15 080
A disorder first diagnosed after discharge may be service connected if all the evidence establishes that the disorder was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
11-31 746
See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (2015); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
10-09 570
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1042 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
06-32 166
Disorders diagnosed after discharge may still be service connected if all the evidence, including pertinent service records, establishes the disorder was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
11-15 198
A disorder diagnosed after discharge may be service connected if all the evidence establishes that the disorder was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
05-17 849
A disability first diagnosed after discharge may be service connected if all the evidence establishes that it was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d); Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
REFLECTONE, INC., Appellant,
v.
John H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Appellee
v.
John H. DALTON, Secretary of the Navy, Appellee
93-1373.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Dec 5, 1994.
Victor J. Zupa and Gregory Baruch, Dick-stein, Shapiro & Morin, L.L.P., Washington, DC, were on the combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing In Banc of appellant., Frank W. Hunger, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and George M. Beasley, III, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept, of Justice, of Washington, DC, were on the appellee’s opposition to suggestion for rehearing In Banc. Also on the opposition was Robert C. Ashpole, Atty., Office of General Counsel, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC, of counsel., Michael W. Clancy, Gregory A. Smith and Vincent S. Antonacci, Pettit & Martin, Washington, DC, were on the brief of Amici Curiae, National Sec. Industrial Ass’n, Aerospace Industries Ass’n of America, Inc. and Electronic Industries Ass’n in support of appellant’s petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing In Banc.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
ORDER
A combined petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing in bane having been filed by appellant in this appeal, and brief of National Security Industrial as amicus curiae in support of the appellant having also been filed with leave of the court, and a response thereto having been invited by the court and filed by appellee,
Upon consideration thereof, it is
ORDERED that the suggestion for rehearing in banc be, and the same hereby is, accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the judgment of the court entered September 1, 1994, is vacated and that the opinion of the court accompanying the said judgment is withdrawn.
The court’s order concerning additional briefing and oral argument in banc will be issued in due course.
Counsel shall file 15 sets of the briefs that were before the panel that heard the appeal initially within 7 days of the date of this order, in accordance with Fed.Cir.R. 35(g).