U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART IV— GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS › Chapter CHAPTER 51— CLAIMS, EFFECTIVE DATES, AND PAYMENTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— PAYMENT OF BENEFITS

38 U.S.C. § 5125

Acceptance of reports of private physician examinations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar

For purposes of establishing any claim for benefits under chapter 11 or 15 of this title, a report of a medical examination administered by a private physician that is provided by a claimant in support of a claim for benefits under that chapter may be accepted without a requirement for confirmation by an examination by a physician employed by the Veterans Health Administration if the report is sufficiently complete to be adequate for the purpose of adjudicating such claim.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1996–2016 · leading case: Angel S. Nieves-Rodriguez v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (Vet. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Angel S. Nieves-Rodriguez v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (Vet. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “38 U.S.C. § 5125 . Unlike other administrative benefits systems, however, this Court has expressly rejected a rule that the opinions of private treating physicians are entitled to presumptively greater weight in evaluating veterans’ claims.”
Clarence W. Kowalski v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 171 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “85 (2001) for hearing loss, and that, under 38 U.S.C. § 5125 , a VA examination was not required to confirm the findings of his private medical opinion.”
Struck v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 145 (Vet. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “) Effect of section 5125: The appellant argues that, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5125 (which he mischaracterizes as a “treating physician rule”), the Secretary was required to accept the medical report of Dr.”
Mathis v. McDonald, 834 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “2010) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 5125 ). MATHIS v. MCDONALD 11 examiner’s competence.”
Gardin v. Shinseki, 613 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “38 U.S.C. § 5125 . In addition, the Secretary has defined “competent medical evidence” to mean, among other things, “evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions.”
Moran v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 149 (Vet. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Specifically, in 1994, Congress enacted 38 U.S.C. § 5125 to eliminate the 38 C.F.”
Raymond E. Douglas v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 19 (Vet. App. 2009). “145, 155 (1996) ( 38 U.S.C. § 5125 is “permissive in nature, although clearly it would not permit the Board to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in not crediting a claimant’s medical evidence”).”
Nat'l Org. of Vets.' Advocates, Inc. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 669 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Second, Petitioners contend that the regulation is contrary to 38 U.S.C. § 5125 , which provides that: For purposes of establishing any claim for benefits under chapter 11 or 15 of this title, a report of a medical examination administered by a private physician that is provided…”
Nat. Org. of Vets.'advocates v. SEC. of Va, 669 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “Second, Petitioners contend that the regulation is contrary to 38 U.S.C. § 5125 , which provides that: For purposes of establishing any claim for benefits under chapter 11 or 15 of this title, a report of a medical examination administered by a private physician that is provided…”
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.