38 C.F.R. § 20.1103
Rule 1103. Finality of determinations of the agency of original jurisdiction where issue is not appealed
A determination on a claim by the agency of original jurisdiction of which the claimant is properly notified is final if an appeal is not perfected as prescribed in § 19.52 of this chapter. If no Notice of Disagreement is filed as prescribed in subpart C of this part, the claim shall not thereafter be readjudicated or allowed, except as provided by 38 U.S.C. 5104B or 5108, or by regulation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 111
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Weaver v. Principi, 14 Vet. App. 301 (Vet. App. 2001).
Weaver v. Principi, 14 Vet. App. 301 (Vet. App. 2001). “§§ 7252 (a) (Court authorized to remand matters); 7261(a)(3)(A) (Court authorized to set aside Board decisions not in accordance with law); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2000) (regional office’s determination on claim is final only if appeal to Board is not perfected).”
Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542 (Vet. App. 1992). “4126 (1992), to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 ). Therefore, the issue presented in this appeal is whether the veteran presented new and material evidence to reopen his claim.”
Robert E. Jones, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 194 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “§ 7105 (c) (1994); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (1999). Subsequent rating decisions that issued in February 1965, June 1985, and May 1989 denied requests to reopen Mr.”
Thomas L. Bingham v. Anthony J. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 470 (Vet. App. 2004). “400 (q)(1)(i) (2003) (referring to 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1103 , 20.1104, and 20.1304(b)(1), all of which address appeals of RO decisions to BVA).”
Thomas R. Donovan, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 158 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (1994). The Board also found that, neither the evidence available when the RO took action in 1947, nor that available thereafter, provided a factual basis for granting the claim of service connection, in effect denying the claim *1380 of service…”
Loran L. Hayslip, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, Respondent-Cross-Appellant, 364 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “Accord 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2003) (“A determination on a claim by the agency of original jurisdiction of which the claimant is properly notified is final if an appeal is not perfected as prescribed in Rule 302.”
Bruce v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 27 (Vet. App. 2001). “911 (b) (2000) (Secretary shall promptly demand payment of debt whose existence was determined by administrative decision or by operation of law); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2000) (RO determination on claim is final only if appeal to Board is not perfected); 38 C.”
Fred A. Mitchell v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 431 (Vet. App. 2015). “38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2015); see 38 U.S.C.”
Green v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 83 (Vet. App. 1993). “38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (1992) (emphasis added).”
14-10 622 (Board of Vet. App. 2018). “§ 7105 (c) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 (2017). 2. Evidence received since the August 2006 rating decision is new and material with regard to the claim of entitlement to service connection for avascular necrosis of the hips, to include as secondary to a service-connected…”
15-20 120 (Board of Vet. App. 2018). “38 C.F.R. § 20.1103 . The RO denied the claim on the basis that evidence did not show that the Veteran claimed a specific skeletal condition and indicated that the evidence must demonstrate a disabling condition.”
Robert E. Jones, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, [6], 203 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “In addition, when a collateral attack is brought with respect to new and material evidence, the Board cannot sua sponte transform that attack into a CUE attack.”
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.