Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that generic notice in response to a claim for an increased rating is all that is necessary
• holding that generic notice in response to a claim for an increased rating is all that is necessary
• interpreting 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) as requiring generic claim-specific notice and rejecting veteran-specific notice as to effect on daily life and as to the assigned or a cross-referenced Diagnostic Code under which the disability is rated
• interpreting 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) as requiring generic claim-specific notice and rejecting Veteran-specific notice as to effect on daily life and as to the assigned or a cross-referenced Diagnostic Code under which the disability is rated
• interpreting 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) as requiring generic claim-specific notice and rejecting veteran-specific notice as to effect on daily life and as to the assigned or a cross-referenced Diagnostic Code under which the disability is rated
• interpreting 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) as requiring generic claim-specific notice and rejecting veteran-specific notice as to effect on daily life and as to the assigned or a cross-referenced Diagnostic Code under which the disability is rated

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).