State v. Rillamas

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 valid CUE motion requires that the Veteran assert more than a disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated
• holding that appellant's contention that the RO \misevaluated and misinterpreted evidence available at the time\ of the prior decision is not CUE because it merely requires reweighing the evidence
• emphasizing the pleading requirements for raising, and burden of proof for establishing, a CUE claim
• assuming Secretary would have constructive knowledge of VA insurance determination but finding constructive knowledge irrelevant because Bell did not operate retroactively
• to prove the existence of CUE as set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a), the claimant must show that an outcome-determinative error occurred
• a determination that there was CUE “must be based on the record and law that existed at the time of the prior adjudication in question”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).