L IZZIE K. M AY FIELD v. R. James Nicholson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that reasonable person would have known, based on RO’s relatively contemporaneous communications, about what evidence was “missing” in order to substantiate claim
• holding that no prejudice exists where a claimant had actual knowledge of the evidence necessary to substantiate his claim
• concluding that the Court must \'take due account of the rule of prejudicial error'\
• holding that any Board reasons-or-bases deficiency in discussing how section 5103(a)/ § 3.159(b)(1) notice has been satisfied would of necessity be nonprejudicial to claimant where claimant re- ' ceived compliant notice
• holding that “the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating specifically in what respects the particular notice documents are noncompliant in terms of the purposes sought to be achieved by the notice requirements”
• holding that \the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating specifically in what respects the particular notice documents are noncompliant in terms of the purposes sought to be achieved by the notice requirements\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).