Roderick C. Stallworth v. R. James Nicholson
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
1Dissent
LANCE: Judge,
dissenting:
While I agree with the black-letter law holding of the majority, I must respectfully dissent from its refusal to apply that holding to the facts of this case. The majority is correct that the Secretary’s evidentiary burden in a severance adjudication is the same as that on an appellant trying to demonstrate CUE in a prior decision. The evidence must be so convincing that “reasonable minds could not differ.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(a) (2006). See, e.g., Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 40, 43 (1993). In this case, the Board admitted that “there may be a different view of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Karnas v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1991
- Fugo v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1993
- Frank E. Coburn v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006
- Allan S. Matthews, Claimant-Appellant v. R. James Nicholson, Secretary of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Leonard T. Sutton v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006