C.F.R. » Title 38 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS › PART 19—BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS: LEGACY APPEALS REGULATIONS › Subpart B—Legacy Appeals and Legacy Appeals Processing by Agency of Original Jurisdiction

38 C.F.R. § 19.34

Determination that Notice of Disagreement or Substantive Appeal was not timely filed protested by claimant or representative

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

Whether a Notice of Disagreement or Substantive Appeal has been filed on time is an appealable issue. If the claimant or his or her representative protests an adverse determination made by the agency of original jurisdiction with respect to timely filing of the Notice of Disagreement or Substantive Appeal, the claimant will be furnished a Statement of the Case.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105 (2016)) [57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 84 FR 178, Jan. 18, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1993–2024 · leading case: Orland R. Marsh v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 381 (Vet. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Orland R. Marsh v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 381 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. § 19.34 . An RO determination that an NOD has not been timely filed is an appealable issue.”
M.C. Percy v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37 (Vet. App. 2009). “First, 38 C.F.R. § 19.34 (2008) states: “Whether a .”
Leland E. Gibson v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 11 (Vet. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. §19.34 (2006) ("Whether a . . .”
Marsh v. West, 11 Vet. App. 468 (Vet. App. 1998). “101 (c) (1997) (“[a]ll claimants have the right to appeal a determination made by the agency of original jurisdiction that the Board does not have jurisdictional authority to review a particular issue”); 38 C.F.R. § 19.34 (1997) (“[whether a[n NOD] .”
Rowell v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 9 (Vet. App. 1993). “at 4107 (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 19.34 ). That same authority is inherent in the Board’s determining the validity of an NOD for purposes of its own jurisdiction.”
Morgan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 20 (Vet. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 19.34 (2001). Regulatory § 20.”
Gary L. Ferko v. Denis McDonough, No. 21-3467 (Vet. App. May 28, 2024). “See 38 C.F.R. § 19.34 (2004) ("Whether a Notice of Disagreement .”
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.