38 U.S.C. § 1137
Wartime presumptions for certain veterans
For the purposes of this subchapter and subchapter V of this chapter and notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1132 and 1133 of this subchapter, the provisions of sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this chapter shall be applicable in the case of any veteran who served in the active military, naval, air, or space service after
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 1992–2020 · leading case: Charles L. Degmetich, Claimant-Appellant v. Jesse Brown, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Charles L. Degmetich, Claimant-Appellant v. Jesse Brown, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “§ 1112 (a) (1994); 3 38 U.S.C § 1137 (1994). 4 Mr. Degmetich argues that the Court of Veterans Appeals erred when it upheld the denial of compensation to him based on the fact that there was no evidence he was suffering from a cognizable condition (i.”
Valerie Y. Smith v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40 (Vet. App. 2010). “§ 1112 , as modified by 38 U.S.C. § 1137 , provides that any veteran who served in the active military, naval, or air service after December 31,1946, is entitled to presumptive service connection for “a chronic disease becoming manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within…”
Brian E. Routen, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 142 F.3d 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1998). “306 into consonance with earlier changes made by Congress in the statutory provision regarding the presumption of sound condition upon entry into active duty.”
Crowe v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 238 (Vet. App. 1994). “See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1137 , 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.”
Verdon v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 529 (Vet. App. 1996). “*535 See also 38 U.S.C. § 1137 (extending wartime service presumption of section 1111 to post-1946 peacetime service); 38 C.”
Santiago v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 288 (Vet. App. 1993). “§ 1112 (a)(1) (West 1991); see also 38 U.S.C.A. § 1137 (West 1991). Because Graves’ disease is an “endocrinopa-thy,” or “a disease marked by dysfunction of an endocrine gland” (Webster’s at 210), it is considered a “chronic disease” under the law ( 38 U.”
Cromley v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 376 (Vet. App. 1995). “(This statute, originally applicable only to wartime veterans, was made applicable to veterans who served in peacetime by the operation of 38 U.S.C. § 1137 .) Today’s definition of “chronic disease” in the statute contains the same list as appears in the 1978 version, except…”
Wakeford v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 237 (Vet. App. 1995). “(This statute, originally applicable only to wartime veterans, was made applicable to veterans who served in peacetime by 38 U.S.C. § 1137 .) First, the appellant argues that the BVA erred in interpreting section 1111 when it found that, under its language, the presumption of…”
Patrick v. Nicholson, 242 F. App'x 695 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “Under 38 U.S.C. § 1137 (formerly § 337), the presumption of soundness under 38 U.”
Jackson v. Principi, 115 F. App'x 54 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “because Jackson’s brief and response contained “no discernable argument with respect to the Board’s determinations that the 1987 and 1994 RO decisions were not the products of CUE[J” On appeal from the Board’s decision, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims considered the…”
Grose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 144 (Vet. App. 1993). “The veteran explained at the hearing that he thought that the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1137 (formerly § 337) not only entitled veterans who served during a time of peace to the benefit of those presumptions in § 1112 that were provided for veterans who served “during a period…”
191112-44528 (Board of Vet. App. 2020). “38 U.S.C. §§ 1137 ; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 , 3.”
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.