Antonio Pacheco v. Sloan D. Gibson
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKasold, Chief Judge, joined by Hagel, Moorman, and Lance, Judges,
We fully concur with the per curiam opinion in its holding that deference is warranted to the Secretary’s interpretation of § 3.157(b), and that § 3.157(b) is not applicable to the effective date of Mr. Pacheco’s award of disability compensation. On the other hand, we dissent from the Maggitt remand regarding § 3.156(c). As there have been no newly discovered service records since the last final decision on the merits of Mr. Pacheco’s claim in March 1978, we do not believe § 3.156(c) is for application. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1) (pertaining to service records that “had not been associated…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Office of Personnel Management v. RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- James R. Cook, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans AffairsCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2003
- Fugere v. DerwinskiUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1990
- Hilkert v. WestUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 1999
- Denise Jarrell v. R. James NicholsonUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · 2006
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.