38 C.F.R. § 19.34
Determination that Notice of Disagreement or Substantive Appeal was not timely filed protested by claimant or representative
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.
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).
Orland R. Marsh v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 381 (Vet. App. 2005). “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). “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). “38 C.F.R. § 19.34 (2001). Regulatory § 20.”
Gary L. Ferko v. Denis McDonough (Vet. App. 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.