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. § 105

MAMMOGRAPHY ACCESSIBILITY FOR PARALYZED AND DISABLED VETERANS.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Study.—“(1)In general.—The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall conduct a study on the accessibility of breast imaging services at facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans with paralysis, spinal cord injury or disorder (SCI/D), or another disability.“(2)Accessibility.—The study required by paragraph (1) shall include an assessment of the accessibility of the physical infrastructure at breast imaging facilities of the Department, including the imaging equipment, transfer assistance, and the room in which services will be provided as well as adherence to best practices for screening and treating veterans with a spinal cord injury or disorder.“(3)Screening rates.—“(A)Measurement.—The study required by paragraph (1) shall include a measurement of breast cancer screening rates for veterans with a spinal cord injury or disorder during the two-year period preceding the commencement of the study, including a breakout of the screening rates for such veterans living in rural or highly rural areas.“(B)Development of method.—If the Secretary is unable to provide the measurement required under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall develop a method to track breast cancer screening rates for veterans with a spinal cord injury or disorder.“(4)Report.—Not later than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act [June 7, 2022], the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives a report on the findings of the study required by paragraph (1), including—“(A) the rates of screening among veterans with a spinal cord injury or disorder, including veterans living in rural or highly rural areas, as required under paragraph (3)(A); or“(B) if such rates are not available, a description of the method developed to measure such rates as required under paragraph (3)(B).“(b)Care From Non-Department Providers.—The Secretary shall update the policies and directives of the Department to ensure that, in referring a veteran with a spinal cord injury or disorder for care from a non-Department provider, the Secretary shall—“(1) confirm with the provider the accessibility of the breast imaging site, including the imaging equipment, transfer assistance, and the room in which services will be provided; and“(2) provide additional information to the provider on best practices for screening and treating veterans with a spinal cord injury or disorder.“(c)Definitions.—In this section, the terms ‘rural’ and ‘highly rural’ have the meanings given those terms in the Rural-Urban Commuting Areas coding system of the Department of Agriculture.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Rezi P. Forshey, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 284 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rezi P. Forshey, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 284 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 11× “38 U.S.C. § 105 (a) (2000) (emphases added).”
Jerry R. Shedden, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “While the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims erroneously stated that 38 U.S.C. § 105 (a) does not create a presumption of service connection, we conclude that this error was harmless, and we affirm.”
Morris v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2012). · cites it 8× “Morris filed a motion with the Board in which he argued that the 1988 Board Decision was tainted by CUE because the Board failed to correctly apply 38 U.S.C. §§ 105 (a), 1110, and 1111. According to Mr.”
Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Bryant appealed to the Veterans Court and argued that the Board either misinterpreted or failed to apply 38 U.S.C. §§ 105 (a) and 1111. The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s denial of compensation in both cases.”
William F. Allen, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 237 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “1119 (repealed 1958), stated that “no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran’s own willful misconduct.”
Simmons v. Wilkie, 964 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2020). · cites it 3× “Another statutory presumption relevant to the second requirement is set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 105 (a), which cre- ates a presumption that an injury or disease incurred by a veteran during active service was incurred in the line of duty and not caused by any veteran misconduct.”
United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681 (1987). · cites it 2× “See 38 U. S. C. § 105 . Moreover, the VBA is not, as Feres assumed, identical to federal and state workers' compensation statutes in which exclusivity provisions almost invariably appear.”
Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36 (Vet. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “§ 1310 (a) (requiring that service connection be established under chapter 11 for DIC purposes); 38 U.S.C. § 105 (a) (describing line of duty and willful misconduct); 38 C.”
Dennis R. Thomas, Claimant-Appellant v. R. James Nicholson, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 423 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “On appeal, Thomas argues that the Veterans Court improperly interpreted 38 U.S.C. § 105 (a) by disregarding a presumption of service-connection for Thomas’s injuries that occurred in the line of duty and by not requiring “clear and convincing evidence” from the Secretary of…”
Conley v. Peake, 543 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “Because we conclude that the Veterans Court correctly interpreted 38 U.S.C. § 105 (a), we affirm. BACKGROUND John W.”
Jerry G. Dalton v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (Vet. App. 2007). “According to the appellant, section 1154(b), either alone, or together with section 105(a), creates a presumption of service connection that elimi *29 nates a veteran’s need to submit medical nexus evidence, unless the presumption is rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to…”
Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 140 (Vet. App. 1991). “752 (1944), essentially the same provisions are today found at 38 U.S.C. § 105 (1988), and *143 are also found at 38 C.”
Show all 70 citing cases →
— 38 U.S.C. § 105(a) — 2 cases
Dennis R. Thomas, Claimant-Appellant v. R. James Nicholson, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 423 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “On appeal, Thomas argues that the Veterans Court improperly interpreted 38 U.S.C. § 105 (a) by disregarding a presumption of service-connection for Thomas’s injuries that occurred in the line of duty and by not requiring “clear and convincing evidence” from the Secretary of…”
Thomas v. Nicholson (Fed. Cir. 2005).
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.