Oliver L. Jaquay, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that due-diligence requirement is satisfied by filing motion for BVA reconsideration within judicial-appeal period, even though filing was made at RO instead of Board
• holding that the language of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1001(b) stating that motions for reconsideration \must be filed at the following address\ is merely for the administrative convenience of the Board
• explaining that, in majority of situations, when veteran seeks to file claim for benefits or for reopening, he or she does so at RO and RO adjudicates claim
• misfiling at issue in Jaquay II “took place several steps into a claim for benefits within a government agency”
• examining the difference between motions for Board reconsideration and NOAs to the Court
• examining the difference between motions for Board reconsideration and NOAs to the Court

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).