Adams v. Shinseki

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the conditions for which the veteran sought VA benefits were closely related because rheumatic heart disease and bacterial endocarditis both affect heart valves and are frequently associated with each other
• noting that the conditions for which the veteran sought VA benefits were closely related because rheumatic heart disease and bacterial endocarditis both affect heart valves and are frequently associated with each other
• explaining that in Ingram \the regional office's explanation of its rejection of Mr. Ingram's non-service-connection claim for pension benefits did not give Mr. Ingram reasonable notice that it was also rejecting his claim for disability compensation under section 1151\
• considering the language of the decisions, the relatedness of the claims, and the timing of the 15 claims in deciding whether claim was implicitly denied
• discussing this Court’s holding in Ingram, and stating that in applying the implicit denial doctrine, the Court must “determine whether [VA] provided sufficient information for a reasonable claimant to know that he would not be awarded benefits for his asserted disability” (emphasis added)
• discussing this Court's holding in Ingram, and stating that in applying the implicit denial doctrine, the Court must \determine whether 15 [VA] provided sufficient information for a reasonable claimant to know that he would not be awarded benefits for his asserted disability\ (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).