Byron v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
670 F.3d 1202 (2012)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Lady Louise Byron (plaintiff) brought a claim for service-connection death benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for her husband, a veteran who developed cancer that Byron alleged was related to in-service exposure to radiation. Byron’s claim came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board), which awarded a service connection based on regulations that presumed causation for certain diseases. Under this presumption, an effective date of 1988 was allowed and granted to Byron. Byron appealed this effective date to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court). During this appeal, Byron and the VA agreed that an earlier effective date might be established if Byron could prove entitlement to direct service connection, rather than under a service connection based on the presumption. However, the board had not made the factual findings required to prove this type of entitlement. Therefore, the veterans court remanded the matter back to the board to make these initial factual determinations. Byron appealed the remand to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, alleging that the veterans court should have reversed the board’s decision rather than remand it.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, 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.