Charles v. Principi

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Board’s failure to discuss adequately amended duty to notify, when amendment occurred while the appellant’s claim was pending at the Board, was error
• holding that an appellant was capable of providing lay testimony sufficient to “indicate” that his disability could be associated with service
• holding that appellant’s own lay testimony regarding symptoms is sufficient to satisfy section 5103A(d)(2)(B) when symptoms are “capable of lay observation”
• holding that appellant's own lay testimony regarding symptoms is sufficient to satisfy section 5103A(d)(2)(B) when symptoms are \capable of lay observation\
• holding that Board's failure to discuss adequately amended duty to notify, when amendment occurred while the appellant's claim was pending at the Board, was error
• holding that an appellant was capable of providing lay testimony sufficient to \indicate\ that his disability could be associated with service

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).