Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Mustin v. Brown
No. 93-1048 (U.S. Vet. App. filed Apr. 13, 1994) ; Clearinghouse Number: 49827
Description
Veteran Appeals Decision That Evidence Did Not Justify Reopening His Application for Service-Connected Benefits/ New Evidence/Reopen Application Benefits
Abstract
Appellant veteran has appealed to the Court of Veterans Appeals the
Bureau of Veterans' Appeals (BVA)'s ruling that he had not
submitted sufficient material evidence to justify reopening his
application for service-connected benefits. Veteran enlisted in the
Army in 1944. Veteran was discharged in 1945 with a diagnosis of
epilepsy. For ten years, veteran received service-connected
disability benefits due to his seizure disorder. In 1956, BVA ruled
that the 1945 grant of service connection was clear and mistakable
error, that veteran's epilepsy predated his period of service,
and that the epilepsy had not been exacerbated during his time in
the service. Veteran attempted to reopen his claim in 1974 and 1978
with evidence from friends, relatives, and teachers that he did not
have epilepsy before his induction. BVA found that the evidence was
not new or material. In 1991, veteran again sought to reopen his
claim, presenting evidence from his treating physician that veteran
did not have epilepsy prior to service and that, even assuming he
had, the condition was beyond normal progression in the service.
BVA found that this evidence, although new, was not material. In
this appeal, veteran asserts that the new evidence he submitted is
the only medical analysis available addressing aggravation. He
argues that BVA's decision denying service connection is
clearly erroneous and that BVA's 1956 decision failed to state
any clear error in its previous decision to award
service-connection benefits in violation of BVA regulations and due
process.
Additional Information
Files
No files available.
