Thomas P. Chotta 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.

• stating that “[if] the evidence is not in equipoise . . . the benefit of the doubt rule would not apply”
• noting that a duty to assist may include development of medical evidence through a retrospective medical evaluation where there is a lack of medical evidence for the time period being rated
• discussing how a retrospective opinion may provide probative comment on the severity of a disability years earlier
• “[T]he Court remands this matter so the Board can weigh and assess the probative value of the lay evidence and reconsider its decision in light of this new opinion.” (emphasis added)
• \[T]he Court remands this matter so the Board can weigh and assess the probative value of the lay 6 evidence and reconsider its decision in light of this new opinion.\ (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).