Bardwell v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
24 Vet. App. 36 (2010)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
James Bardwell (plaintiff) was on active duty in the United States Navy for two months, from November 1944 to January 1945. In 2001, Bardwell submitted a claim for disability benefits for a vision disability to the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant). Bardwell claimed that his vision disability was service connected because he had been exposed to a toxic chemical gas during his military training that had caused burning and damage to his eyes and that his eyesight had begun to deteriorate after that event. After an extensive search, however, the VA was unable to uncover any records indicating that Bardwell had suffered such an exposure during his service. The VA denied Bardwell’s claim, and Bardwell appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board upheld the denial, holding that Bardwell’s testimony of an in-service chemical exposure was not credible, given that it was entirely undocumented in service and medical records and given the short duration of his service. Bardwell appealed, alleging that the board had erred in not ordering a medical examination for him under the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hagel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.