Legal Opinion
Hartman v. Nicholson
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided April 5, 2007No. 2006-7303PublishedCited by 80 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Section 5103(a) of Title 38 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs “[u]pon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application” for benefits to “notify the claimant of any information and any medical or lay evidence ... necessary to substantiate the claim.” The principal question in this appeal is whether this notice requirement applies when a veteran files an appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals (“Board”) from an initial decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“Department”) regional office denying the veteran an…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chrysler Corp. v. BrownSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- The Perkin-Elmer Corporation, a Corporation of New York v. Computervision Corporation, a Corporation of DelawareCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1984
- Dingess - Hartman v. NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006
- Mayfield v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- William O. Schism and Robert Reinlie v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by80 opinions
- Prism Technologies LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2017
- Michelle R. Goodwin v. James B. PeakeUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2008
- Valerie Y. Smith v. Eric K. ShinsekiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2010
- Sandra K. Hupp v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2007
- Wilson v. MansfieldCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2007
75 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.