Benjamin F. Kent v. R. James Nicholson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, in claims to reopen, VCAA notice requires discussion of new and material evidence and explanation of evidence required to substantiate elements found insufficient in previous decision
• holding that, for claims to reopen, notice must be provided as to “what evidence would be necessary to substantiate that element or elements ... were found insufficient in the previous denial”
• holding that, for claims to reopen, notice must be provided as to “what evidence would be necessary to substantiate that element or elements ... were found insufficient in the previous denial”
• stating that although presumptions are rules of law for handling evidence, they are not themselves considered evidence
• stating that although presumptions are rules of law for handling evidence, they are not themselves considered evidence
• explaining that the duty to notify includes explaining to the veteran seeking to reopen the claim the precise nature of the requisite “new” and “material” evidence because these terms “have specific, technical meanings that are not commonly known to VA claimants”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).