Angel Vazquez-Flores v. James B. Peake
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
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
- Dingess - Hartman v. NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006
- Mayfield v. NicholsonCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2006
- Francisco v. BrownUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1994
- Benjamin F. Kent v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006
- 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
- Vazquez-Flores v. ShinsekiCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2009