38 C.F.R. § 19.25
Notification by agency of original jurisdiction of right to appeal
The claimant and his or her representative, if any, will be informed of appellate rights provided by 38 U.S.C. chapters 71 and 72, including the right to a personal hearing and the right to representation. The agency of original jurisdiction will provide this information in each notification of a determination of entitlement or nonentitlement to Department of Veterans Affairs benefits.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1993–2015 · leading case: Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214 (Vet. App. 2000).
Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214 (Vet. App. 2000). “114 (1985), was renumbered and somewhat modified to create 38 C.F.R. § 19.25 , which provides: The claimant and his or her representative, if any, will be informed of appellate rights provided by 38 U.”
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993). “38 C.F.R. §§ 19.25 , 19.100 (1992). (In simultaneously contested claims, the VARO must provide notice of appeal to other contesting parties.”
Luke C. Miley, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 242 F.3d 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “§ 7105 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 19.25 . If the veteran disagrees with the rating decision, he may then file a notice of disagreement (NOD).”
Velez v. West, 11 Vet. App. 148 (Vet. App. 1998). “1304(a), (b), (c) (right under certain circumstances, or for good cause shown, to submit additional evidence after notice of certification of appeal to BVA) (1997); see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.25 (right to notice of appellate rights); 19.”
Katherine Graham v. United States, 96 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 1996). “76 (Veterans Services Officer required to furnish the claimant and his representative with a Statement of the Case and to apprise both of rights to appeal); 38 C.F.R. § 19.25 (Department of Veterans Affairs must notify both claimant and his representative of appeal rights, right…”
Ivan R. Sellers v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 265 (Vet. App. 2012). “See 38 C.F.R. § 19.25 (2010). In short, there is nothing to show that this document was provided to the appellant in the regular course of business as a decisional document.”
05-13 239 (Board of Vet. App. 2014). “The Veteran was notified of this decision and his appellate rights in a March 1993 letter in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 19.25 (2013). He did not submit a notice of disagreement (NOD).”
10-28 279 (Board of Vet. App. 2015). “38 C.F.R. §§ 19.25 , 20.1304 (2015). As noted above, an April 2015 rating decision denied entitlement to service connection for tinnitus and hearing loss.”
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.