Founder Tbird Posted March 23, 2006 Founder Share Posted March 23, 2006 http://www.hadit.com/content/usefulcases.htm Veterans Benefits Manual http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/catal...yword%3Dveteran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angela Posted March 24, 2006 Share Posted March 24, 2006 Tbird, You list Gilbert v Derwinski on your usefulcases page and accurately note that it has been used to justify the CAVC's refusal to substitute their judgement for that of the BVA finding of fact if their is a plausible explanation for the finding. Could you also add Padgett v Nicholson (No. 02-2259) Decided April 19, 2005. Padgett discusses how Gilbert (relying on Hicks) has had UNFORTUNATE & UNINTENDED results, and goes on to state "To the extent that Hicks and other precedents relying on Hersey can be read to support the proposition that a Board finding cannot be clearly erroneous unless the evidence against that finding is uncontroverted, that precedent is OVERRULED UNANIMOUSLY." It also says that the court MUST weigh the evidence in order to determine if BVA's application of "benefit of the doubt" and "preponderance" standards were properand that the BVA's explanation for why these standards were not applied must be properly reasoned, i.e. reasonable or make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Tbird
http://www.hadit.com/content/usefulcases.htm
Veterans Benefits Manual
http://bookstore.lexis.com/bookstore/catal...yword%3Dveteran
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
1
1
Popular Days
Mar 23
1
Mar 24
1
Top Posters For This Question
Tbird 1 post
Angela 1 post
Popular Days
Mar 23 2006
1 post
Mar 24 2006
1 post
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts