green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
22.8 score
“congress, of course, can choose to change or eliminate the well-grounded claim requirement altogether.... but that balancing process is the responsibility of the legislative branch, not this court.”
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
McQueen v. West
But see Morton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 477, 486 (1999) (concluding that “under [38 U.S.C. § ]5107, absent the submission and establishment of a well-grounded claim, the Secretary cannot undertake to assist a veteran in developing facts pertinent to his or her claim” and that any Manual M21-1 provision in conflict with section 5107 is void); cf. Appellant’s Notice of Supplemental Authorities (Oct. 12, 1999), at 2 (“Morton may nullify some of the arguments that Mr. McQueen presented to the Court concerning the [April 1995 Memorandum and Manual M21-1 provisions]”).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Chase v. West
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
under 5107, absent the submission and establishment of a well-grounded claim, the secretary cannot undertake to assist a veteran in developing facts pertinent to his or her claim
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Roberson v. Principi
congress, of course, can choose to change or eliminate the well-grounded claim requirement altogether.... but that balancing process is the responsibility of the legislative branch, not this court.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
12-22 369
(4×)
Evidence submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease, to include as due to exposure to environmental hazards, is new and material, and the claim is reopened. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108 , 7105 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2014). 3.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James E. Sursely v. James B. Peake
Cf. Morton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 477, 486 (1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Karen Gordon v. R. James Nicholson
In Morton, the Court interpreted the version of 38 U.S.C. § 5107 then in effect as prohibiting the Secretary from providing most forms of assistance to benefits claimants who had not submitted “well grounded” claims. 12 Vet.App. at 480-85.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pedro P. Duenas v. Anthony J. Principi
Morton, 12 Vet.App. 477, 486 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 505-06 (1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed.Cir.1996) (table).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Disabled American Veterans, and National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc., and National Association of Black Veterans, John J. Castillo, and Joseph Holmes v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
In 1999, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("CAVC") held that § 5107(a) precluded VA from assisting a claimant in any way unless that claimant had first established that his or her claim was well-grounded. 2 Morton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 477, 485 (1999), withdrawn and appeal dismissed, Morton v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 174 (2000). 3 On November 9, 2000, Congress enacted the VCAA, Pub.L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
In 1999, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“CAVC”) held that § 5107(a) precluded VA from assisting a claimant in any way unless that claimant had first established that his or her claim was well-grounded. 2 Morton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 477, 485 (1999), withdrawn and appeal dismissed, Morton v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 174 (2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Costantino v. West
Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (c)(2), a VA hearing officer has a regulatory duty to “suggest the submission of evidence which the claimant may have overlooked and which would be of advantage to the claimant’s position.” “The absence of a well-grounded claim ... does not absolve the Secretary of all duties.... [P]ursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (e)(2) ..., VA hearing officers have a regulatory duty to ‘suggest the submission of evidence which the claimant may have overlooked.’ ” Brewer v. West, 11 Vet.App. 228, 235 (1998) (citing Douglas v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 435, 441-42 (1992) …
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Morton v. West
(3×)
Morton, 12 Vet.App. at 483 [hereinafter Morton at 483 ] (quoting Paralyzed Veterans of America v. West, 138 F.3d 1434, 1436 (Fed.Cir.1998)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Phillip G. Cline v. Eric K. Shinseki
(2×)
See Morton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 477, 486 (1999), withdrawn, Morton v. Gober, 14 Vet.App. 174 (2000) (per curiam order), and superseded by statute, Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub L.
cited
Cited "see"
Marvin Robinson v. James B. Peake
See Morton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 477, 486 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hal H. Locklear v. R. James Nicholson
See id. (noting that the Court’s decision in Morton “meant that benefits claims that were filed by disabled veterans ha[d] been rejected prior to their proper development and consider- ation”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Kilpatrick v. Principi
See Morton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 477, 485-86 (1999), vacated on other grounds by 14 Vet.App. 174 (2000) (per curiam order) (withdrawing prior Court opinion vacating underlying BVA decision, and dismissing appeal, all due to death of appellant while case was on appeal from this Court’s opinion).
discussed
Cited "see"
Timberlake v. Gober
See Tobler v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 8, 14 (1991).) Likewise, a panel may not issue a decision that the VA Adjudication ProcedüRE Manual, M21-1, provisions regarding the duty to assist prior to the submission of a well-grounded claim are binding on VA, because that issue has already been decided to the contrary by Morton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 477 (1999), en banc review denied, 13 Vet.App. 205 (1999), appeal dismissed and matter remanded sub nom.
cited
Cited "see"
Stuckey v. West
See Morton, supra. The Court rendered its decision without finding that the Court had jurisdiction to hear this argument and specifically stated that that decision would be rendered by this case.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dyment v. West
See Morton v. West, 12 Vet.App. 477 (1999) (Court held manual provisions, circulars, and regulations inconsistent with relevant statute pertaining to the duty to assist do not create substantive rights and are not entitled to judicial deference).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Robert KESSEL
v.
Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary of Veterans Affairs
v.
Togo D. WEST, Jr., Secretary of Veterans Affairs
No. 98-772.
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Jul 7, 1999.
ORDER
PER CURIAM:On June 14, 1999, the appellant filed a Motion for Leave to Submit Supplemental Brief. In support of his motion, the appellant asserts that subsequent to the filing of his brief this Court rendered a decision in Arms v. West, 12 Vet.App. 188 (1999), interpreting 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) and 38 U.S.C. § 5107. The appellant contends that additional briefing may be helpful “[b]ecause the possible relevancy of Arms and of both of the statutes referred to above may be a significant part of the oral argument and may be relevant to the resolution of this appeal.” He indicates that he has spoken to the Office of General Counsel who opposes his motion.
The panel believes that additional briefing would assist in its disposition of the appeal. On consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the appellant, not later than ten days after the date of this order, submit a supplemental brief or memorandum addressing the statutes referenced above and the Court’s decision in Arms addressing those statutes. It is further
ORDERED that the Secretary, not later than seven days after the appellant files his supplemental brief or memorandum, may file a response. On consideration of the impending oral argument scheduled for July 27, 1999, no requests for extensions of time will be entertained.