EHP Corp. v. Hendlin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that procedural requirements of § 3.321(b)(1) do not derogate the obligation of the Board “to seek out all issues which are reasonably raised from a liberal reading of the documents or oral testimony submitted prior to the [Board] decision”
• noting that Board may consider whether referral to \appropriate first-line officials\ for extra-schedular rating is required
• stating that once Board properly refers an extraschedular rating issue to Director of C&P for review, appellant may \continue[] to appeal the extraschedular rating aspect of this claim\
• stating that extrasche-dular rating consideration is “always part” of claim for schedular rating-increase claim
• stating that extraschedular rating consideration is \always part\ of claim for schedular rating-increase claim
• noting that issue of extrasehedular rating is not a “matter” separate from an increased-rating claim but is “always part of the same claim” under Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384, 391-92 (1993), and 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).