State ex rel. Doi v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Board failure to provide notice and opportunity to respond to proposed Board reliance on medical treatises was not prejudicial where “appellant did not argue that any [such] error by the BVA was prejudicial to his interests”
• “[T]his Court is required to make an independent determination of whether the facts found by the [Board] satisfactorily rebut the presumption of soundness.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).