U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART II— GENERAL BENEFITS › Chapter CHAPTER 11— COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OR DEATH › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— WARTIME DISABILITY COMPENSATION

38 U.S.C. § 110

AUTHORIZATION FOR EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Study of Health Consequences of Persian Gulf Service.—If the National Academy of Sciences includes in the report required by section 706(b) of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (Public Law 102–585) [set out in a note under section 527 of this title] a finding that there is a sound basis for an epidemiological study or studies on the health consequences of service in the Persian Gulf theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War and recommends the conduct of such a study or studies, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is authorized to carry out such study.“(b)Oversight.—(1) The Secretary shall seek to enter into an agreement with the Medical Follow-Up Agency (MFUA) of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences for (A) the review of proposals to conduct the research referred to in subsection (a), (B) oversight of such research, and (C) review of the research findings.“(2) If the Secretary is unable to enter into an agreement under paragraph (1) with the entity specified in that paragraph, the Secretary shall enter into an agreement described in that paragraph with another appropriate scientific organization which does not have a connection to the Department of Veterans Affairs. In such a case, the Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives, at least 90 days before the date on which the agreement is entered into, notice in writing identifying the organization with which the Secretary intends to enter into the agreement.“(c)Access to Data.—The Secretary shall enter into agreements with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make available for the purposes of any study described in subsection (a) all data that the Secretary, in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences and the contractor for the study, considers relevant to the study.“(d)Authorization.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department such sums as are necessary for the conduct of studies described in subsection (a).”
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2021 · leading case: John M. Ferenc v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 58 (Vet. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John M. Ferenc v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 58 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “665 (2005) violates 38 U.S.C. §§ 110 , 1159, and 5301. VA’s interpretation of regulations and statutes are reviewed de novo by the Court.”
Colayong v. West, 12 Vet. App. 524 (Vet. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “The appellant also argues that, even if his current 60% rating is no longer appropriate, it is preserved under 38 U.S.C. § 110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.951 (b) (1998) (providing that a disability that has been rated at or above a certain percentage for 20 or more years may not be…”
Segundo Mariano v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305 (Vet. App. 2003). “Second, the BVA did not consider whether, based on the period between the March 1973 attribution of the 10% rating to MG IV and the October 1999 apparent change in attribution of that 10% rating to MG I, the appellant has a protected 10% rating for MG IV because that rating has…”
Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “The appellant also argues that her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution were violated and that her “award granted by the Secretary is protected by [ 38 U.S.C. § 110 ].” 1 However, the appellant’s “characterization of that question as constitutional in…”
Oscar G. Fugere v. Edward J. Derwinski, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 972 F.2d 331 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “However, Fugere could not be rated below twenty percent pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 110 (West 1991) and 38 C.F.”
Kilpatrick v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 1 (Vet. App. 2002). “The appellant argues in his supplemental reply brief that the GC opinion is unreasonable, and therefore invalid, because it does not give effect to the “service-connected” language of section 1151 as defined in 38 U.”
Kitchens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 320 (Vet. App. 1995). “See 38 U.S.C. § 110 ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.951 (b) (1993).”
Daniel J. Murray v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 420 (Vet. App. 2011). “951(b) (2010); see also 38 U.S.C. § 110 . 4 .Neither the record nor the Board explains this change in effective date.”
Salgado v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 316 (Vet. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “NEBEKER, Chief Judge: Appellant, Juan Salgado, seeks reversal of a January 24, 1991, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) decision which held that his 50% rating for post-traumatic brain syndrome with healed fracture of the right parietal bone was not protected under 38 U.S.C.A. §…”
Sugrue v. Derwinski, 808 F. Supp. 946 (E.D.N.Y 1992). “Under 38 U.S.C. § 110 , a disability rating which has been in effect for twenty years can only be reduced upon a showing of fraud.”
Tietjen v. United States Vet.'s Admin., 692 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Ariz. 1988). “See 38 U.S.C. § 110 ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.951 (1987) (persons with rating for over twenty years will not have their ratings reduced except upon a showing of fraud).”
Gifford v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 269 (Vet. App. 1994). “As there is no exception under either 38 U.S.C. § 110 or § 1159 for “administrative error,” service connection for the right thigh was, therefore, improperly severed, and appellant is entitled to service connection for gunshot wounds to both thighs.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.