Bartholomew v. West

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that 70-year-old appellant was ineligible for accrued benefits because he did not satisfy statutory definition of “child” in 38 U.S.C. § 101(4)(A), which excludes anyone over age 23 unless they were “permanently incapable of self-support” before attaining age 18
• stating that benefits were awarded to the appellant under sections 5121 and 5310
• reviewing a Board decision denying accrued benefits because the appellant had not established eligibility as an accrued-benefits beneficiary
• denying DIC, as a matter of law, to the elderly child of a veteran
• taking judicial notice of Mr. Burris's then-current age
• noting the veteran's date of death

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).