Hawaiian Trust Co. v. Faria

How courts have described this case

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

• holding BVA effective-date determination clearly erroneous for failure to consider evidence predating date of application for increase
• stating that an appellant is entitled to submit additional evidence and argument concerning a question at issue upon remand
• holding that, where VA never sent the claimant a formal application form pursuant to § 3.155, the one-year time period to return it could not have begun to run and therefore the effective date of the claim was the date of the informal claim
• noting that, where a claimant fails to return to the Secretary a formal claim application within one year of submitting an informal claim, the informal claim is not a “cognizable claim for effective date purposes”
• finding entitlement to an earlier effective date than the date of diagnosis based on evidence of symptoms at an earlier date
• finding entitlement to an earlier effective date than the date of diagnosis based on evidence of symptoms at an earlier date

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).