38 C.F.R. § 20.1104
Rule 1104. Finality of determinations of the agency of original jurisdiction affirmed on appeal
When a determination of the agency of original jurisdiction is affirmed by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, such determination is subsumed by the final appellate decision.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Robert E. Jones, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 194 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Robert E. Jones, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 194 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “Based-on its interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 , 3 the Board reasoned that Mr.”
Michael D. Herndon, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 311 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “§ 7104 (b) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 read together, to determine when application of the subsuming doctrine is appropriate.”
Donovan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 404 (Vet. App. 1997). “The appellant argues CUE in the August 1947 rating decision which denied service connection for gastric neurosis and secondary psyehoneurosis as not incurred in or aggravated by service.”
Link v. West, 12 Vet. App. 39 (Vet. App. 1998). “105 (a) exists as a matter of law” with respect to an RO decision that was “appealed to and affirmed by the Board and thus subsumed in the Board’s decision”); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (1997). To the extent that the appellant contends that there was CUE in the 1989 Board decision, the…”
Shoffner v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 208 (Vet. App. 2002). “38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (2001). This Court's jurisdiction is limited to the review of Board decisions, and Dr.”
Vda de Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42 (Vet. App. 1994). “Additionally, the underlying RO decision had been subsumed in the BVA decision here on appeal, see 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (1993) (BVA decision affirming RO decision subsumes the latter decision); Olson v.”
Rita L. Dicarlo v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 52 (Vet. App. 2006). “2002) (holding that a Board affirmance of an RO decision subsumes that decision); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (2004). 3 . The Court notes that a Board's correction of obvious error pursuant to 38 U.”
Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330 (Vet. App. 1997). “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (1996); Hudgins, supra.”
Morris v. West, 13 Vet. App. 94 (Vet. App. 1999). “NEBEKER, Chief Judge: This Court issued a panel opinion in the instant case on August 20, 1999, pursuant to a timely motion for decision by a three-judge panel. U.S. Vet. App. R. 35(b). In that motion, the appellant argued that the initial disposition of the case, by a May 6,…”
Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69 (Vet. App. 1995). “42, 52 (1994) (“underlying [unfavorable] RO decision had been subsumed in the BVA decision here on appeal”); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (1994) (BVA de- *81 cisión affirming RO decision subsumes the latter decision).”
Pirkl v. Wilkie, 906 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “§ 7111 (e) - (f) (providing that a request for revision of a final Board decision based on CUE "shall be submitted directly to the Board and shall be decided by the Board on the merits" and, if submitted elsewhere, is to be referred to the Board); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 ("When a…”
Duran v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 216 (Vet. App. 1994). “352, 355-56 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1104 (when a determination of an AOJ is affirmed by the BVA, the AOJ determination is “subsumed” by the final appellate decision).”
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.