Michael T. Acciola 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 merely citing a general entitlement statute or regulation is insufficient to allege a specific CUE theory and explaining that to accept such broad pleadings would create a \pleading gimmick\ placing undue burden on the Secretary to invent CUE theories to adjudicate
• \[I]f the pleading could encompass numerous theories [of CUE] . . . a CUE motion is properly dismissed without prejudice.\
• Secretary conceding that even pleadings filed by a veteran’s representative are to be read sympathetically
• Secretary conceding that even pleadings filed by a veteran's representative are to be read sympathetically
• “[A] CUE theorfy] [is] more likely to be successful when the claimant ... clearly intends to raise it.”
• “[I]f the pleading could encompass numerous theories [of CUE] ... a CUE motion is properly dismissed without prejudice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).