Correra v. Correra

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Board’s apparent failure to take direct account of certain evidence was nonprejudicial where record contains no evidence supporting increased-rating claim
• holding that under prior 38 U.S.C. §§ 4104(d)(1) and 5107(a) VA is obligated to respond to specific “request for VA assistance one way or the other”
• holding that under prior 38 U.S.C. §§ 4104(d)(1) and 5107(a) VA is obligated to respond to specific \request for VA assistance one way or the other\
• holding that BVA failed to provide satisfactory explanation as to why sworn testimony and six lay statements were not sufficient evidence to apply benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) or the reasonable doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b
• noting that the “duty to assist is not unlimited” and that “the duty to develop pertinent facts applies to ‘all relevant facts’ ” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)
• noting that the “duty to assist is not unlimited” and that “the duty to develop pertinent facts applies to ‘all relevant facts’ ” (citation omitted) (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).