Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Larry G. Tyrues v. Eric K. Shinseki

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided October 2, 2009No. 04-0584Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

LANCE, Judge, with whom SCHOELEN, Judge,

joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part:

While I agree with the outcome on the theory that was addressed by the majority, I cannot agree that we lack jurisdiction over the entire claim. The majority opinion effectively overrules our decision in Roebuck v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 307 (2006), by limiting the case to its facts. The majority does so in the name of administrative efficiency. However, I cannot agree that administrative efficiency trumps a veteran’s interest in receiving the full *194amount of benefits that he is entitled to by virtue of…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Collins v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  2. Andrews v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Adway Maggitt, Jr., Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
  4. Arteaga v. MukaseyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  5. McLendon v. NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006

24 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