(a) Right to a hearing. A hearing on appeal will be granted if an appellant, or an appellant's representative acting on his or her behalf, expresses a desire to testify before the Board. An appellant is limited to one Board hearing following the filing of a Notice of Disagreement with a decision of the agency of original jurisdiction. Requests for additional Board hearings may be granted for good cause shown.
(b) Purpose of hearing. The purpose of a hearing is to receive argument and testimony relevant and material to the appellate issue or issues. It is contemplated that the appellant and witnesses, if any, will be present. A hearing will not normally be scheduled solely for the purpose of receiving argument by a representative. Such argument may be submitted in the form of a written brief. Requests for appearances by representatives alone to personally present argument to Members of the Board may be granted if good cause is shown. Whether good cause has been shown will be determined by the presiding Member assigned to conduct the hearing.
(c) Nonadversarial proceedings. Hearings conducted by the Board are ex parte in nature and nonadversarial. Parties to the hearing will be permitted to ask questions, including follow-up questions, of all witnesses but cross-examination will not be permitted. Proceedings will not be limited by legal rules of evidence, but reasonable bounds of relevancy and materiality will be maintained. The presiding Member may set reasonable time limits for the presentation of argument and may exclude documentary evidence, testimony, and/or argument which is not relevant or material to the issue, or issues, being considered or which is unduly repetitious.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7105(a), 7107)
[57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 58 FR 27935, May 12, 1993; 61 FR 20450, May 7, 1996; 84 FR 184, Jan. 18, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
83
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case:
Cook v. Snyder, 28 Vet. App. 330 (Vet. App. 2017).
Cook v. Snyder, 28 Vet. App. 330 (Vet. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “” 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (a) (emphasis added). The Met-erán was afforded a Board hearing in June 2012.”
Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
“See 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (a) (right to a hearing).”
Robert H. Arneson v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 379 (Vet. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “103 (c)(2) (2010) (emphasis in original); 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (a) (2010) ("A [Board] hearing on appeal will be granted if an appellant .”
Gambill v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Parties to the hearing will be permitted to ask questions, including follow-up questions, of all witnesses but cross-examination will not be permitted."). Apart from demonstrating Congress's general desire to preserve the nonadversarial nature of the veterans' disability…”
Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67 (Vet. App. 1997).
“See 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (c) *78 (1996); Robinette, 8 Vet.”
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993).
“38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (1992). A claimant has the right to notification of the time and place of the hearing on appeal.”
Mathis v. McDonald, 834 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “”); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.700 (c), 20.706 (no cross- examination is permitted at Board hearings); Gambill, 576 F.”
Acree v. O'rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“See 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (b) ("A hearing will not normally be scheduled solely for the purpose of receiving argument by a representative.”
Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69 (Vet. App. 1995).
“The well-grounded-claim requirement applicable in that nonadversarial process resembles the rule applied in civil actions to determine whether a complaint has stated a cause of action — a basis for affording the relief sought — for which purpose the facts alleged are accepted as…”
Atilano v. McDonough, 12 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Atilano present, the Board ex- plained that “[p]ursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (b), the pur- pose of a hearing is to receive argument and testimony relevant and material to the appellate issue,” and that “[i]t is contemplated that the appellant and witnesses, if any, ‘will be…”
Epps v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 341 (Vet. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “However, his testimony, as well as any further testimony he may have had to offer on that issue, would have been entirely superfluous and have been properly excluded under 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (c) (1995) (the presiding member “may set reasonable time limits for the presentation of…”
Cook v. Wilkie, 908 F.3d 813 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“(discussing 38 C.F.R. § 20.700 (a) ("A hearing on appeal will be granted if an appellant .”
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.