Bryant v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
23 Vet. App. 488 (2010)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Walter Bryant (plaintiff) served in the United States Army from 1943 to 1946 and from 1950 to 1951. In 2005, Bryant filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for service-connected-disability benefits for hearing loss, tinnitus, carcinoma, and frostbite. The medical evidence in record concluded that Bryan did not have frostbite and that although he did have hearing loss and tinnitus, these disabilities were not connected to his service. There was also evidence regarding treatment for carcinoma, but no evidence addressing the issue of service connection for that disability. The VA denied all of his claims, because the record either failed to show Bryant currently had a claimed condition or failed to show a service connection. Bryant appealed the VA’s decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board) and requested a hearing before a board member. During the hearing, the hearing officer reviewed the four medical conditions that were in question but did not review the fact that proof of current disability or a nexus to service were the outstanding material issues required to substantiate the claims. The hearing officer also failed to suggest any evidence that the veteran might have overlooked and should submit. The board eventually upheld the denials of all benefits, and Bryant appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence/Dissent (Lance, 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.