Beraud v. McDonald
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
766 F.3d 1402 (2014)

- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
In 1985, Leonard Beraud (plaintiff) filed a claim for service-connected disability for headaches resulting from head trauma. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) could not find some of Beraud’s service medical records and requested information to help locate them. Before Beraud responded, the VA denied the claim because the record indicated headaches, not a chronic headache disorder. Beraud responded with information about where to find the additional service medical records. The VA never gave any indication that it had obtained or evaluated the additional medical records. In 2004, Beraud submitted an informal disability claim for the same headache disorder. The VA granted the claim with an effective date of the informal claim submission. Beraud appealed, claiming that the effective date should have been 1985. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board) denied the appeal. Beraud appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, claiming that the 1985 claim was never final because the VA had never determined whether the additional medical records were new and material evidence. The court affirmed the board’s decision on the informal claim. The court agreed that the first claim had remained pending but held that because the board had presumably reviewed all relevant evidence in full and decided a claim based on the same disability, the 2004 decision had the effect of closing the 1985 claim. Beraud appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Malley, J.)
Dissent (Lourie, 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.