U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART V— BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND SERVICES › Chapter CHAPTER 73— VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION—ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— GENERAL AUTHORITY AND ADMINISTRATION

38 U.S.C. § 101

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BREAST IMAGING SERVICES FOR VETERANS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)In General.—Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act [June 7, 2022], the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives a strategic plan for improving breast imaging services for veterans.“(b)Elements.—The strategic plan required by subsection (a) shall—“(1) cover the evolving needs of women veterans;“(2) address geographic disparities of breast imaging furnished at a facility of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the use of breast imaging through non-Department providers in the community;“(3) address the use of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT–3D breast imaging);“(4) address the needs of male veterans who require breast cancer screening services; and“(5) provide recommendations on—“(A) potential expansion of breast imaging services furnished at facilities of the Department, including infrastructure and staffing needs;“(B) the use of digital breast tomosynthesis;“(C) the use of mobile mammography; and“(D) other access and equity improvements for breast imaging.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 614 cases (83 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (Vet. App. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (Vet. App. 2001). · cites it 11× “In the remand decision, the Court specifically directed the Board to consider whether the language of 38 U.S.C. § 101 (3), “held himself or herself out openly to the public to be the spouse of such other person,” was applicable when, *145 even though the holding out might have…”
Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 15× “" 38 U.S.C. § 101 (16). The Agent Orange Act provided that for certain veterans and certain diseases, both exposure and service connection are presumed to be established.”
Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361 (1974). · cites it 12× “served on active duty" (defined in 38 U. S. C. § 101 (21) as "full-time duty in the Armed Forces"), and is therefore not an "eligible veteran" entitled under 38 U.”
Valerie Y. Smith v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40 (Vet. App. 2010). · cites it 11× “” 38 U.S.C. § 101 (2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (d) (2010).”
Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993). · cites it 4× “, 38 U. S. C. § 101 (31) ("The term `spouse' means a person of the opposite sex who is a wife or husband"); § 103(a) ("any claim filed by a person as the widow or widower of a veteran"), the military, see, e.”
G Eorge R. T Heiss v. Anthony J. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 204 (Vet. App. 2004). · cites it 12× “, 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (4) and 104) in question are ambiguous; that any such interpretive doubt should be resolved in his favor, see Brown v.”
Trilles v. West, 13 Vet. App. 314 (Vet. App. 2000). · cites it 10× “See 38 U.S.C. § 101 (20) (defining a state as "each of the several States, Territories, and possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.”
Teurlings v. Larson, 320 P.3d 1224 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 10× “In making this determination, the district court relied on 38 U.S.C. § 101 (22), which is the definition section for veterans benefits and defines “active duty for training” to include travel to and from such training.”
Jerry R. Shedden, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “” 38 U.S.C. § 101 (16) states that: The term service-connected means, with respect to disability or death, that such disability was incurred or aggravated, or that the death resulted from a disability incurred or aggravated, in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air…”
Allen - Key v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 54 (Vet. App. 2007). · cites it 15× “PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS Allen and Key argue that (1) the record does not contain clear and unmistakable evidence showing that their grants of service connection were CUE; (2) the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases because it failed to consider and…”
Karen S. McDowell v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 207 (Vet. App. 2009). · cites it 18× “38 U.S.C. § 101 (4)(A) (emphasis added). The appellant has made no assertion, nor does the evidence of record demonstrate that the appellant and the veteran were ever married, thus excluding the possibility that T.”
Kevin T. Donnellan v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167 (Vet. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “” 38 U.S.C. § 101 (2); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.”
Show all 614 citing cases →
— 38 U.S.C. § 101(11) — 1 case
Freed v. Baldi, 443 P.2d 716 (Colo. 1968).
— 38 U.S.C. § 101(13) — 1 case
John M. Ferenc v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 58 (Vet. App. 2006).
— 38 U.S.C. § 101(16) — 1 case
Nielson v. SHINSEKI, 607 F.3d 802 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
— 38 U.S.C. § 101(21) — 2 cases
Robison v. Johnson, 352 F. Supp. 848 (D. Mass. 1973).
Ghidoni v. Maine Pub. Employees Retirment Sys. (Me. Super. Ct 2019).
— 38 U.S.C. § 101(22) — 1 case
200218-68524 (Board of Vet. App. 2020).
— 38 U.S.C. § 101(24) — 1 case
Layne v. United States, 190 F. Supp. 532 (S.D. Ind. 1961).
— 38 U.S.C. § 101(3) — 2 cases
Constancia A. Vda De Daylo v. Adm'r of Vets.' Affairs, 501 F.2d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1974).
Brown v. Wilkie (Fed. Cir. 2020).
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.