Feliciano-Hill v. Veterans Affairs

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining “[p]arties have an obligation to object to an expert’s testimony in a timely fashion, so that the expert’s proposed testimony can be evaluated with care”
• “benefits may not be denied to a disabled claimant because 19 of a failure to obtain treatment that the claimant cannot afford”
• “[W]here a petitioner’s testimony 3 1 was seemingly too vague, we have asked immigration judges to 2 request additional details before concluding that the 3 narrative was not credible.”
• “The mere fact that two experts disagree is not grounds for excluding one’s testimony.”
• “The mere fact that two experts disagree is not grounds for excluding one’s testimony.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).