Brokowski v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
23 Vet. App. 79 (2009)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Richard Brokowski (plaintiff) served in the United States Navy from 1965 to 1969. In 1976 he began experiencing pain in his lower extremities related to a vascular disease and underwent several surgeries. One of Brokowski’s physicians suggested that he might be suffering from a secondary neurological condition, but that type of condition was not clearly identified as a possible disorder in his medical records. In 1978, Brokowski applied for disability benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant). His application claimed benefits for depression and anxiety, and also for “all disabilities of record.” The VA denied his claim. In 1993, Brokowski was diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy. He again applied for benefits, both for this new diagnosis and for his vascular disease. After extensive procedures, his claim came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board denied benefits for the vascular condition but granted benefits for peripheral neuropathy, dating back to 1994, the date when the VA first received correspondence seeking a service connection for his neuropathy. Brokowski appealed the effective date, but the board denied an early service connection, holding there was no evidence of an intent to apply for benefits for that disorder before 1994. Brokowski appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schoelen, 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.
