38 U.S.C. § 5109B
Expedited treatment of returned and remanded claims
The Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary to provide for the expeditious treatment by the Veterans Benefits Administration of any claim that is returned by a higher-level adjudicator under section 5104B of this title or remanded by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,799
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2004–2025 · leading case: Martin v. O'Rourke
Martin v. O'Rourke (2018)
“See 38 U.S.C. § 5109B (“The Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary to provide for the expeditious treatment by the appropriate regional office of the Veterans Benefits Administration of any claim that is remanded to a regional office of the Veterans Benefits…”
JAMES A. W ASHINGTON v. R. James Nicholson (2005)
“See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, the appellant's and the Secretary's briefs, and a review of the record on appeal, the Board's October 2, 2003, decision is VACATED and the matter REMANDED for readjudication consistent with this…”
William R. Young v. Eric K. Shinseki (2012)
“Moreover, although numerous petitions were dismissed for mootness after the Secretary took some action, none of those dismissals involved a petition to amend a Board decision referring rather than remanding part of a claim for further adjudication or to enforce expeditious…”
William Shade v. Eric K. Shinseki (2010)
“CONCLUSION The Court having considered the parties' briefs and the record on appeal, that portion of the Board's September 9, 2008, decision finding that the private doctor's report, which provided a current diagnosis of a skin condition, "does not relate to an unestablished…”
James P. Barr v. R. James Nicholson (2007)
“See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112; Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.”
Lawrence M. Tropf v. R. James Nicholson (2006)
“The Board shall proceed expeditiously, in accordance with 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2005) (requiring Secretary to provide for "expeditious treatment" of claims remanded by Board or Court).”
Brian J. Hart v. Gordon H. Mansfield (2007)
“See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B and 7112. III. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the foregoing analysis, the record on appeal, and the parties’ pleadings, the June 21, 2005, Board decision is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED to the Board for further adjudication.”
McLendon v. Nicholson (2006)
“The Board shall proceed expeditiously, in accordance with 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112 (requiring Secretary to provide for “expeditious treatment” of claims remanded by Board or Court).”
Nathan Yancy v. Robert A. McDonald (2016)
“The Board shall proceed expeditiously, in accordance with 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B and 7112 (requiring Secretary to *497 provide for “expeditious treatment” of claims remanded by Board or Court).”
Cleveland D. Harvey v. Eric K. Shinseki (2011)
“ORDER PER CURIAM: The matter currently before the Court has its genesis in the Secretary’s failure to expeditiously handle a remand order as required by 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B and 7112. In June 2008, the Court issued a decision concerning the petitioner’s appeal of a February 8,…”
Pedro P. Duenas v. Anthony J. Principi (2004)
“The focus of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 was to ensure that all information necessary to making a determination on a claim is obtained and presented to the adjudicator as early on in the decision-making process as possible.”
Angel Vazquez -Flores v. James B. Peake (2008)
“See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112. III. CONCLUSION Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Board's February 1, 2005, decision is SET ASIDE, and the matters are REMANDED for readjudication consistent with this opinion.”
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.