Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dale R. Shipley v. Eric K. Shinseki

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided June 30, 2011No. 09-0197Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHagel, Judge

I concur with the majority’s opinion, save for one issue: the appropriate remedy to be afforded the appellant.

At issue in this case is the appropriate effective date for the disability compensation benefits awarded the appellant following the regional office’s June 2005 determination that his PTSD is service connected. As with all of its determinations, when establishing the appropriate effective date for an award of benefits, the Board must provide a written statement of the reasons or bases for its “findings and conclusions! ] on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record.”…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1990
  2. Burke Hensley, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
  3. Zevalkink v. BrownCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1996
  4. Tucker v. WestUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1998
  5. Ray A. Mc Clain v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2007

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API