Chotta v. Peake
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
22 Vet. App. 80 (2008)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Thomas Chotta (plaintiff) served in the United States Army between 1941 and 1945. In 1946 Chotta was diagnosed with psychoneurosis and anxiety, but the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) denied a service connection for his condition that year and again in 1947. Over the next 50 years, Chotta’s nervous condition continued and worsened. In 1997 he petitioned to reopen his case and amend his 1947 claim to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). After a number of further denials of his claims by the VA, appeals, and multiple legal proceedings, the VA and Chatto reached an agreement that the VA would issue a service-connected-disability decision for PTSD for Chatto, to be effective from 1947 onward. The agreement stipulated that the VA would determine the degree of disability and that Chatto would retain the right to appeal that decision. The VA issued a disability rating of 50 percent for the years 1947 to 1999, and a 70 percent rating onward. The VA asserted that a higher disability rating for the 1947–1999 period was not warranted because there was no medical evidence of PTSD in the record for those years. Upon Chatto’s appeal of the rating determination, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board) remanded the case to allow Chatto to submit additional evidence. Chatto was only able to submit lay testimony about his condition during those years, and as a result the VA returned the same ratings. Chatto again appealed, and the board upheld the VA’s decision. Chatto appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (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.