Lau Bow v. Kiley

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 VA Form 21-4138 that meets the substantive requirements of both section 7266(a) and Rule 3 of the Court’s Rules and requests review by the Court is an NOA
• holding that mailing a decision to only the appellant's representative \violates th[e] statutory requirement\ to mail the decision to both the appellant and his or her representative in 38 U.S.C. § 4004(e), now section 7104(e
• holding that document not complying with prescribed form for NOA, that was filed by appellant, that requested review by Court, and that was received by Court within 120 days after notice of BVA decision was mailed, constituted valid NOA
• statement filed with Board held to be an NOA because \it requested review by the Court\
• receipt of VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim, within requisite 120-day jurisdictional filing period constituted filing valid Notice of Appeal
• NOA was valid where incorrectly sent to BVA but nevertheless received by Court within 120 days after BVA decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).