Adams v. Principi
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
256 F.3d 1318 (2001)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Jimmy Adams (plaintiff) entered into active service with the United States Navy in 1992. During service, he was diagnosed with hormonal disorders, and he was eventually discharged as medically unfit for duty as a result of those conditions. The Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) denied his claim for service-connected-disability benefits for these conditions, and Adams appealed. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board) remanded the matter back to the VA for the development of further medical evidence, including an examination by a VA endocrinologist. The endocrinologist opined that Adams’s conditions “may have” preexisted his service. Based on this report, the VA again denied a service connection, and Adams appealed. The board affirmed the denial, noting that the report was sufficient to establish that Adams’s disabilities clearly preexisted service. Adams appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court), which held that the board’s decision regarding the preexisting issue was premature and remanded the matter for further development of the evidence. Adams appealed the remand to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the federal circuit).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 791,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.