(a) Decisions based on entire record. The appellant will not be presumed to be in agreement with any statement of fact contained in a Statement of the Case to which no exception is taken. Decisions of the Board are based on a review of the entire record.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7104(a), 7105(d)(4))
(b) Content. The decision of the Board will be in writing and will set forth specifically the issue or issues under appellate consideration. Except with respect to issues remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction for further development of the case and appeals which are dismissed because the issue has been resolved by administrative action or because an appellant seeking nonmonetary benefits has died while the appeal was pending, the decision will also include findings of fact and conclusions of law on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record, the reasons or bases for those findings and conclusions, and an order granting or denying the benefit or benefits sought on appeal or dismissing the appeal.
(c) A decision by a panel of Members will be by a majority vote of the panel Members.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7104(d) (2016))
[57 FR 4104, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 61 FR 20449, May 7, 1996. Redesignated at 84 FR 177, Jan. 18, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 4337, Feb. 15, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Arthur Hickson v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 394 (Vet. App. 2010).
· cites it 9× “Hickson has otherwise failed to demonstrate that the Board contravened 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (b), which provides that the Board will notify an appellant of its intent to consider law not already considered by the agency of original jurisdiction [AOJ] where such consid *396 eration…”
Gambill v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 8× “38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (a); see also 38 U.S.C.”
Sprinkle v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 8× “” 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (a). Be- cause we conclude that § 20.”
Barney O. Padgett v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 133 (Vet. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “at 426 ("subsection (c) of section 7109[, by] requir[ing] notice and provision of a copy of the [VA] opinion to a claimant (as does section 5109[(c)]), merely restates the procedural process due a claimant under higher law before a decision is made"); 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (a)…”
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “Subsection (c) of section 7109 contemplates furnishing the obtained opinion to the claimant, thus affording more than notice of an intent to obtain, but not specifically addressing the right of a claimant to respond to the obtained opinion (see discussion of 38 C.F.R. § 20.903…”
Sandra K. Hupp v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 342 (Vet. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “§ 5103A duty to assist by failing to obtain relevant service medical records (SMRs); and (4) the Board erred by failing to notify her, in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (b) (2007), of its intention to consider evidence not previously considered and to allow her time to…”
James A. Nohr v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 124 (Vet. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Both section 7109(c) and the Secretary’s regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (a), require the Board to (1) notify an appellant and his representative, if any, that the Board has requested a medical opinion, and (2) furnish a copy of the medical opinion to the appellant and his…”
Austin v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 547 (Vet. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The same notice and comment procedures provided in current Rule of Practice [903 ( 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (1993)) ] for other types of opinions used in disposing of appeals will be used with respect to .”
Disabled Am. Vets. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Although 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 , infra Part II.C.3, requires the Board to notify the appellant of evidence it has obtained, this notice does not include a statement of the weight the Board intends to assign to new evidence, an assessment of whether the evidence is determinative,…”
Booton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 368 (Vet. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “The Court also discussed 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (1994) and the BVA Chairman’s Memorandum No.”
Sutton v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 553 (Vet. App. 1996).
“Subsequently, the Board obtained the IMO, and, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (1993), allowed the veteran 60 days to respond.”
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.