Boggs v. Peake
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
520 F.3d 1330 (2008)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Clinton Boggs (plaintiff) served on active duty in the United States Army from 1950 to 1954, including combat service during the Korean War with an artillery unit. In 1955, Boggs filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for a service-connected disability for a left-ear condition. Boggs was diagnosed with conductive hearing loss, a type of hearing loss caused by problems in the outer or middle ear due to obstructions or infections. The VA denied a service connection because it found the condition began before Boggs’s military service. Decades later, Boggs was diagnosed with sensorineural hearing loss, a type of hearing loss caused by acoustic trauma such as repeated exposure to loud noise, in the same ear. Boggs again filed for service-connected-disability benefits for hearing loss in his left ear, this time under this new diagnosis. After extensive procedures before the VA and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board), his claim was denied. The issue eventually came before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court), which upheld the denial of benefits on the grounds that the claims should be considered the same because they involved the same symptomology. Boggs appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gajarsa, 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.