Wilson v. Mansfield

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that section 5103(a) requires only generic notice in that it need not identify evidence specific to the individual claimant's case
• acknowledging that there are “many statutory and regulatory provisions that do apply to VA’s actions after an initial RO decision, and that provide the claimant with notice as to why his claim was rejected and an opportunity to submit additional relevant evidence”
• rejecting argument that VCAA requires “specific notice” that includes pre-decisional assessment of the evidence
• \[N]otice may be generic in the sense that it need not identify evidence specific to the individual claimant's case (though it necessarily must be tailored to the specific nature of the veteran's claim).\
• “[N]otice may be generic in the sense that it need not identify evidence specific to the individual claimant’s case (though it necessarily must be tailored to the specific nature of the veteran’s claim).”
• “Within this detailed procedural scheme, section 5103(a) serves to facilitate the claim process by ensuring ‘that the claimant be given the required information prior to the VA’s decision on the claim and enables the claimant to understand the process.... ’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).