C.F.R. » Title 38 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS › PART 19—BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS: LEGACY APPEALS REGULATIONS › Subpart A—Applicability

38 C.F.R. § 19.1

Provisions applicable to legacy appeals

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Part 19 and subparts F, G, and J of part 20 apply only to the processing and adjudication of legacy appeals, as defined in § 19.2. Except as otherwise provided in specific sections, subparts A, B, H, K, L, M, N, and O of part 20 apply to the processing and adjudication of both appeals and legacy appeals. For applicability provisions concerning appeals in the modernized review system, see § 20.4 of this chapter.

[84 FR 177, Jan. 18, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1982–2019 · leading case: Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 394 (Vet. App. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fletcher v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 394 (Vet. App. 1991). “” 38 C.F.R. § 19.1 (a) (1990). This means that the BVA undertakes a de novo determination.”
Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Nimmo, 536 F. Supp. 707 (E.D. Va. 1982). · cites it 2× “§ 4004 (a) (1976); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.1 , .3 (1980). The veteran’s second avenue of appeal is to submit a request for waiver of the VA’s claim to the local facility that has billed him.”
Whitmire v. United States Vets. Admin., 661 F. Supp. 720 (W.D. Wash. 1986). “, 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.1 , et seq. Plaintiff has not shown that he exhausted his administrative remedies as regards his access to the entire amount of his pension benefits, nor that those administrative remedies are no longer available to him.”
Sec'y of Labor of Commonwealth v. Turnage, 657 F. Supp. 1033 (D.P.R. 1987). “§ 4004 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.1 , 19.2. Even assuming that RodríguezrBáez is appealing from the VA Hospital’s decision not to refer him to another hospital, the matter would still have to be taken through the administrative channels.”
United States v. Rowin, 550 F. Supp. 643 (W.D.N.Y. 1982). “) and regulations ( 38 C.F.R. § 19.1 , et seq.) and offends logic and common notions of due process.”
Kevin R. George v. Robert L. Wilkie (Vet. App. 2019). “See 38 C.F.R. § 19.1 (1977) ("In its decisions, the Board is bound by the regulations of the Veterans Administration, instructions of the Administrator and precedent opinions of the chief law officer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.