James v. Barringer v. James B. Peake

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Court has jurisdiction to review whether the Board erred in failing to address a reasonably raised claim
• holding that the Court has jurisdiction to review whether the Board erred in failing to address a reasonably raised claim
• holding that the Court has jurisdiction to review whether the Board erred in failing to address a reasonably raised issue
• noting that the issue of an extra-schedular rating is a component of a claim for an increased rating and referral for consideration must be addressed either when raised by the veteran or reasonably raised by the record
• noting that the issue of an extra-schedular rating is a component of a claim for an increased rating and referral for consideration must be addressed either when raised by the veteran or reasonably raised by the record
• noting that the issue of an extraschedular rating is a component of a claim for an increased rating and referral for consideration must be addressed either when raised by the veteran or reasonably raised by the record

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).