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. § 103

UPGRADE OF BREAST IMAGING AT FACILITIES OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO THREE-DIMENSIONAL DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
“Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act [June 7, 2022], the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall—“(1) upgrade all mammography services at facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs that provide such services to use digital breast tomosynthesis technology, also known as three-dimensional breast imaging; and“(2) submit to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives a report—“(A) indicating that the upgrade under paragraph (1) has been completed; and“(B) listing the facilities or other locations of the Department at which digital breast tomosynthesis technology is used.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 59 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: Owings v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 17 (Vet. App. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Owings v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 17 (Vet. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “Item 1 below is the statute regarding remarriage of the widow of a veteran, 38 U.S.C. § 103 (d), in effect before November 1990.”
Lamour v. Peake, 544 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 8× “38 U.S.C. § 103 (c) provides that validity of a marriage is determined ac *1320 cording to the law of the place where the couple resided at the time of the marriage or when the right to the benefits accrued.”
Frederick v. Shinseki, 684 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “The revision necessary to accomplish this goal was made by an amendment to 38 U.S.C. § 103 (d)(2)(B), which before amendment provided certain medical care benefits to surviving spouses who remarried after the age of 55.”
Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 23 (Vet. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “The provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 103 (c) (Supp. V 1987) are disposi-tive: In determining whether or not a person is or was the spouse of a veteran, their marriage shall be proven as valid for purposes of all laws administered by the [Department of Veterans Affairs] according to the…”
Giancaterino v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 555 (Vet. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “Under 38 U.S.C. § 103 (e), however, *557 The marriage of a child of a veteran shall not bar recognition of such child as the child of the veteran for benefit purposes if the marriage is void, or has been annulled by a court with basic authority to render annulment decrees unless…”
Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “However, the appellant argues that the Veterans Court “failed to interpret [ 38 U.S.C. § 103 (d)(3) ] concerning [the] restoration of benefits to widows who had remarried another.”
Burden v. Shinseki, 727 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 5× “The court determined that section 5107(b)’s benefit of the doubt rule does not apply when determining the existence of a valid common law marriage because “Congress specifically addressed the standard of proof that must be applied by the Secretary” when it enacted 38 U.S.C. §…”
Dedicatoria v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 441 (Vet. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “In addition, the BVA recognized that under 38 U.S.C. § 103 (a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.52 an invalid marriage could be “deemed valid” if the appellant “was without knowledge of any legal impediment to [the] marriage.”
Flores v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 516 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “Second, the appellant argues that the Board erred in failing to apply 38 U.S.C. § 103 (d), which provides for the restoring of benefits for surviving spouses, and that her DIC benefits should be restored as of the date of Mr.”
Ruth Hill Frederick v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 335 (Vet. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “She appeals through counsel a November 19, 2008, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that denied restoration of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) because she did not file an application for DIC within one year from the date of the enactment of Public Law…”
Cacatian v. West, 12 Vet. App. 373 (Vet. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Prior to November 1, 1990, 38 U.S.C. § 103 (d)(3) (1989) stated “If a surviving spouse ceases living with another person and holding himself or herself out openly to the public as that person’s spouse, the bar to granting that person benefits as the surviving spouse of the…”
Sandoval v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 7 (Vet. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “1 (j) (1993); See also 38 U.S.C. § 103 (e). A surviving spouse who was married to the veteran for one year or more prior to the veteran’s death would qualify for VA benefits.”
Show all 59 citing cases →
— 38 U.S.C. § 103(a) — 1 case
Lamour v. Peake, 544 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “38 U.S.C. § 103 (c) provides that validity of a marriage is determined ac *1320 cording to the law of the place where the couple resided at the time of the marriage or when the right to the benefits accrued.”
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.