Legal Opinion

Angel Vazquez-Flores v. James B. Peake

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

Decided May 9, 2008No. 05-0355PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

2Per curiam

On February 20, 2008, the Secretary filed a motion for panel reconsideration, or in the alternative, en banc review of the Court’s opinion in Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 37 (2008). The Secretary contends that reconsideration is warranted because (1) the notice requirements set forth for increased-compensation claims in the opinion would require the Secretary to provide specialized, individualized notice not contemplated by statute or caselaw, and (2) the opinion incorrectly held that the notice error found in this case was prejudicial. For the reasons stated below, the motion…

3Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Dingess - Hartman v. NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006
  2. Mayfield v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
  3. Francisco v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1994
  4. Benjamin F. Kent v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006
  5. Angel Vazquez -Flores v. James B. PeakeUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2008

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

4Cited by1 opinion

  1. Vazquez-Flores v. ShinsekiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API