38 C.F.R. § 20.1303
Rule 1303. Nonprecedential nature of Board decisions
Although the Board strives for consistency in issuing its decisions, previously issued Board decisions will be considered binding only with regard to the specific case decided. Prior decisions in other appeals may be considered in a case to the extent that they reasonably relate to the case, but each case presented to the Board will be decided on the basis of the individual facts of the case in light of applicable procedure and substantive law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,733
cases (602 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Michael A. Hudgens v. Sloan D. Gibson, 26 Vet. App. 558 (Vet. App. 2014).
Michael A. Hudgens v. Sloan D. Gibson, 26 Vet. App. 558 (Vet. App. 2014). “"); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 (2013) (providing that "previously issued Board decisions will be considered binding only with regard to the specific case decided").”
Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “As an initial matter, the VA’s regulations clearly state that “Board decisions will be considered binding only with regard to the specific case decided,” 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 , and the 2014 Medical Opinion expressly limits the medical expert’s MUCMI recommendation to only Mr.”
Robert Fountain v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (Vet. App. 2015). “The Court is mindful that Board decisions are nonprecedential, 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 (2014), and that the Board is bound by “regulations by the Department, instructions of the Secretary, and the prec-edential opinions of the chief legal officer of the Department,” 38 U.”
Robert H. Gray v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 313 (Vet. App. 2015). “The Board emphasized that under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 , the November 2009 Board decision did not have precedential value in Mr.”
Karen S. McDowell v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 207 (Vet. App. 2009). “" 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 . Therefore, Burch does not provide a basis that a biological requirement is longstanding.”
Richard B. Hime v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 1 (Vet. App. 2016). “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 (2015) ("Prior decision in other appeals may be considered in a case to the extent that they reasonably relate to the case, but each case presented to the Board will be decided on the basis of the individual facts of the case in light of applicable…”
Lynch v. Gober, 11 Vet. App. 22 (Vet. App. 1997). “349, 351 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 (1996). Thus, prior BVA decisions do not control the outcome of a particular ease.”
Eddie D. Ray v. Robert L. Wilkie (Vet. App. 2019). “"32 Here, the "previously issued Board decision" in 2014 was a referral decision. The Board's decision to refer the TDIU issue and its decision to award a rating are different and distinct decisions such that the Board isn't precluded from denying an extraschedular rating after…”
190103-2831 (Board of Vet. App. 2019). “However, each Board decision is based on review of the evidence of record in a particular claims file and, accordingly, has no precedential value toward adjudication of appeals by other claimants, such as this Veteran, who may appear to be similarly placed.”
190404-3281 (Board of Vet. App. 2020). “38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 . Moreover, each appeal involves different factual circumstances, making it inappropriate to determine the Veteran’s claim based on another Veteran’s particular disability picture.”
190502-8831 (Board of Vet. App. 2020). “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303 . For the reasons stated above, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding the Veteran’s penile cancer, to include removal of left groin lymph node are either presumptively or otherwise directly related to service.”
200224-80087 (Board of Vet. App. 2021). “In support of his appeal, the Veteran cited to a prior Board decision. However, prior Board decisions are not precedential.”
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.