38 C.F.R. § 3.330
Resumption of rating when veteran subsequently reports for Department of Veterans Affairs examination
Such ratings will be governed by the provisions of § 3.158, “Abandoned Claims,” and § 3.655, “Failure to report for Department of Veterans Affairs examination.” The period following the termination or reduction for which benefits are precluded by the cited regulations will be stated in the rating. If the evidence is insufficient to evaluate disability during any period following the termination or reduction for which payments are not otherwise precluded, the rating will contain a notation reading “Evidence insufficient to evaluate from _____ to ______.
Failure to report for Department of Veterans Affairs examination. See § 3.655.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1992–2003 · leading case: James R. Cook, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
James R. Cook, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “” 38 C.F.R. § 3.330 (1949). Rating boards, under 38 C.”
Dinsay v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 79 (Vet. App. 1996). “2(a), part II (1946); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.330 , 19.2 (1949). The Court notes that the January 1991 BVA decision “referred” the issue of an earlier effective date to the RO “for appropriate action”, R.”
Jones v. West, 12 Vet. App. 98 (Vet. App. 1998). “See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.330 (1998) (entitled “Resumption of rating when veteran subsequently reports for Department of Veterans Affairs examination”).”
Crandell v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 33 (Vet. App. 1992). “103, 107-108 (1992) (the Court held that the Board in its decision making is required by § 7104(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.330 (a), to consider all evidence of record).”
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.