38 C.F.R. § 20.1401

Rule 1401. Definitions

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

(a) Issue. Unless otherwise specified, the term “issue” in this subpart means a matter upon which the Board made a final decision (other than a decision under this subpart). As used in the preceding sentence, a “final decision” is one which was appealable under Chapter 72 of title 38, United States Code, or which would have been so appealable if such provision had been in effect at the time of the decision.

(b) Party. As used in this subpart, the term “party” means any party to the proceeding before the Board that resulted in the final Board decision which is the subject of a motion under this subpart.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 7104(a)) [57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 84 FR 192, Jan. 18, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 2000–2014 · leading case: Joseph C. Hillyard v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 343 (Vet. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Joseph C. Hillyard v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 343 (Vet. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “§ 7111 (c) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.1401 (a), as one that “has been mailed by the Board to the claimant following review by the Board based upon an allegation of clear and unmistakable error.”

Sterling T. Rice v. Eric K. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (Vet. App. 2009). “310, 318 (2005) (“Although no statute of limitations exists for the filing of a CUE claim, the conclusion that such a claim cannot properly be filed while that claim is still appealable on direct review is supported by the definition of ‘finality’ as to CUE claims that is…”

James W. Stanley, Jr., Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 283 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “609(c) then refers us to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1401 (a), which defines a “final decision” as “one which was appealable.”

Thomas F. Cacciola v. Sloan D. Gibson, 27 Vet. App. 45 (Vet. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 20.1401 (a) (2014). The central question in this case is whether section 7111 or the Secretary's governing regulations, §§ 20.”

Robert J. May v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 310 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “Although no statute of limitations exists for the filing of a CUE claim, the conclusion that such a claim cannot properly be filed while that claim is still appealable on direct review is supported by the definition of “finality” as to CUE claims that is provided in 38 C.F.R. §…”

Disabled Am. Vets. v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “NOVA filed a petition for review on March 18, 1999, challenging the validity of the rules codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1401 (a), 20.1403(a),(b)(2),(c)-(e), and 20.”

Hillyard v. Dept. Of Vets. Affairs, 695 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “38 C.F.R. § 20.1401 (a). In its notice of rulemaking, the VA explained the operation of then proposed Rule 1409: Proposed Rule 1409 .”

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.