Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
12 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case:
Jeun v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
Jeun v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” 10 U.S.C § 1554a(a)(1) (2012). "The review by the Physical Disability Board of Review under paragraph (1) shall be based on the records of the armed force concerned and such other evidence as may be presented to the Physical Disability Board of Review.”
Hatmaker v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 217 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
· cites it 5× “See 10 U.S.C. § 1554a; see Cook v. United States, 123 Fed.”
Jason Sissel v. Christine Wormuth, 77 F.4th 941 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
· cites it 5× “3 , 465–67 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1554a), to “address the disparities in the disability ratings issued by the military departments in the Department of Defense and the VA” during that period.”
Blair Coleman v. Frank Kendall, 74 F.4th 610 (4th Cir. 2023).
· cites it 3× “430 , 465–67 (2008) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 1554a). The Board’s purpose was to retroactively review the fairness and accuracy of disability determinations made by military branches for members of the armed forces who were medically separated with a disability rating…”
Cook v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
· cites it 6× “Chapter 61; Authority of the Physical Disability Board of Review Under 10 U.S.C. § 1554a; Army Acted Contrary to Law OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Plaintiff Ronald C.”
Martinez v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 176 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
· cites it 2× “10 U.S.C. § 1554a(b). Congress created the PDBR in response to a report by a Department of Defense (“DOD") independent review group, which examined conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center.”
Stine v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 776 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
“10 U.S.C. § 1554a(b), (d). The PDBR was created in response to a report by a Department of Defense independent review group, which examined conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center.”
Sabo v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 606 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
“at 465-67 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1554a). On October 14,- 2008, the Department of Defense issued a policy memorandum regarding implementation of the Wounded Warrior Act.”
Adams v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 628 (Fed. Cl. 2014).
“The Wounded Warrior Act, in the next section, section 1643 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1554a), established the PDBR.”
Silbaugh v. United States, 107 Fed. Cl. 143 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“*147 The DoD established the PDBR in 2008, see 10 U.S.C. § 1554a (Supp. II 2008), to “reassess the accuracy and fairness of the combined disability ratings assigned [s]ervice members who were discharged as unfit for continued military service by the Military Departments with a…”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(a): 6 cases
Cook v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“Chapter 61; Authority of the Physical Disability Board of Review Under 10 U.S.C. § 1554a; Army Acted Contrary to Law OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Plaintiff Ronald C.”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(a)(1): 1 case
Jeun v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
“” 10 U.S.C § 1554a(a)(1) (2012). "The review by the Physical Disability Board of Review under paragraph (1) shall be based on the records of the armed force concerned and such other evidence as may be presented to the Physical Disability Board of Review.”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(a)(2): 1 case
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(a)(l): 1 case
Cook v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“Chapter 61; Authority of the Physical Disability Board of Review Under 10 U.S.C. § 1554a; Army Acted Contrary to Law OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Plaintiff Ronald C.”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(b): 7 cases
Martinez v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 176 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
“10 U.S.C. § 1554a(b). Congress created the PDBR in response to a report by a Department of Defense (“DOD") independent review group, which examined conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center.”
Stine v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 776 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
“10 U.S.C. § 1554a(b), (d). The PDBR was created in response to a report by a Department of Defense independent review group, which examined conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and National Naval Medical Center.”
Jason Sissel v. Christine Wormuth, 77 F.4th 941 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
“3 , 465–67 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1554a), to “address the disparities in the disability ratings issued by the military departments in the Department of Defense and the VA” during that period.”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(b)(1): 1 case
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(c): 2 cases
Blair Coleman v. Frank Kendall, 74 F.4th 610 (4th Cir. 2023).
“430 , 465–67 (2008) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 1554a). The Board’s purpose was to retroactively review the fairness and accuracy of disability determinations made by military branches for members of the armed forces who were medically separated with a disability rating…”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(c)(1): 1 case
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(c)(2): 3 cases
Jeun v. United States, 128 Fed. Cl. 203 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
“” 10 U.S.C § 1554a(a)(1) (2012). "The review by the Physical Disability Board of Review under paragraph (1) shall be based on the records of the armed force concerned and such other evidence as may be presented to the Physical Disability Board of Review.”
Blair Coleman v. Frank Kendall, 74 F.4th 610 (4th Cir. 2023).
“430 , 465–67 (2008) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 1554a). The Board’s purpose was to retroactively review the fairness and accuracy of disability determinations made by military branches for members of the armed forces who were medically separated with a disability rating…”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(c)(4): 1 case
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(d): 4 cases
Jason Sissel v. Christine Wormuth, 77 F.4th 941 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
“3 , 465–67 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1554a), to “address the disparities in the disability ratings issued by the military departments in the Department of Defense and the VA” during that period.”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(d)(1): 3 cases
Jason Sissel v. Christine Wormuth, 77 F.4th 941 (D.C. Cir. 2023).
“3 , 465–67 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1554a), to “address the disparities in the disability ratings issued by the military departments in the Department of Defense and the VA” during that period.”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(d)(3): 1 case
Cook v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“Chapter 61; Authority of the Physical Disability Board of Review Under 10 U.S.C. § 1554a; Army Acted Contrary to Law OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Plaintiff Ronald C.”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(e)(3): 2 cases
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(e)(l): 1 case
Cook v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
“Chapter 61; Authority of the Physical Disability Board of Review Under 10 U.S.C. § 1554a; Army Acted Contrary to Law OPINION AND ORDER SWEENEY, Judge Plaintiff Ronald C.”
10 U.S.C. § 1554a(g)(2): 1 case
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.