Esquirra v. Meheula

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a claimant’s \reasonable opportunity to respond” to an independent medical opinion is \not limited to argument or comment, but also include[s] the claimant’s right to submit additional evidence”
• noting that although BVA may “be authorized to develop and consider certain new evidence”, it must do so with regard to fair process
• finding that where BVA failed to apply facially applicable regulations, or to give reasons or bases explaining why such regulations were not applicable, its decision on appeal must be set aside
• finding that where BVA failed to apply facially applicable regulations, or to give reasons or bases explaining why such regulations were not applicable, its decision on appeal must be set aside
• discussing 38 C.F.R. § 1.551(e)’s prohibition against adversely affecting anyone by matter not published in Federal Register
• discussing \considerations of fair process” in obtaining and considering Board medical adviser’s opinion in adjudication of claim and holding that \evidence [must] be procured by the agency in an impartial, unbiased, and neutral manner”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).