38 U.S.C. § 314
Central Office
The Central Office of the Department shall be in the District of Columbia.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Garry J. Augustine, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 343 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Garry J. Augustine, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 343 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Augustine was also awarded SMC under 38 U.S.C. § 314 (Z) based on the loss of use of one hand and one foot.”
Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 118 (Vet. App. 1991). “Because we find that the Secretary fulfilled neither his duty to assist nor his duty to distribute full information, we remand this case so that the proper clinical evidence can be gathered through a VA physical examination and a determination made as to whether the veteran is…”
Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987). “In this case, we are asked to decide whether a state court has jurisdiction to hold a disabled veteran in contempt for failing to pay child support, where the veteran's only means *622 of satisfying this obligation is to utilize benefits received from the Veterans'…”
Guillory v. Dept. Of Vets. Affairs, 669 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “In a June 1967 regional office (“RO”) decision, Guillory was awarded, effective on the date of his discharge, compensation at the total disability rate under 38 U.S.C. § 314 (j) (1964), 1 additional special monthly compensation at the rate between subsections (l) and (m), and an…”
John T. Ulrich, Cross-Appellee v. Vets. Admin. Hosp. & United States of Am., Defendants- Cross-Appellants, 853 F.2d 1078 (2d Cir. 1988). “Prior to the May 7, 1976 incident, Ulrich received VA benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 314 (j) (1982 & Supp. IV 1986) on account of his total mental disability.”
Sursely v. Peake, 551 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Sursely a 100% disability rating, found service connection, and awarded special monthly compensation pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 314 (now 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (2006)).”
Dennis Morgan & Louise Morgan v. United States, 968 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1992). “For example, 38 U.S.C. § 314 (renumbered § 1114 by 1991 DVA Act but referred to herein as “§ 314”), which sets rates of wartime disability compensation for specified percentage levels of disability, reveals that many disability ratings are keyed to specific anatomical losses,…”
Ex Parte Johnson, 591 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1979). “38 U.S.C. §§ 314 , 334. The payment to relator was not an earned property right which accrued to him by reason of his years of service in the Navy, but was for a service-connected disability.”
In Re Marriage of Milhan, 613 P.2d 812 (Cal. 1980). “(See 38 U.S.C. §§ 314 , 334.) In order to receive this benefit, Mr.”
Marriage of Karr v. Karr, 628 P.2d 267 (Mont. 1981). “(See 38 U.S.C. §§ 314 , 334.) In order to receive this benefit, Mr.”
Moyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 289 (Vet. App. 1992). “38 U.S.C. § 314 (k) (now § 1114), 38 C.F.”
Hoyer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 208 (Vet. App. 1991). “Hoyer, seeks to appeal a January 11,1990, Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (BVA) decision which upheld the denial of his claim for special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 314 (k) for the loss of use of his lower extremities.”
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.