Colvin v. Derwinski
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
1 Vet. App. 171 (1991)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Colvin (plaintiff) was a Vietnam War veteran who had been wounded three times during the war. In addition to these wounds, Colvin had experienced other medical complications during the war and within the two years following his discharge from the military. When Colvin eventually developed multiple sclerosis, he claimed a service connection for the diagnosis, alleging that the other medical conditions he had experienced during and shortly after his service had been medical precursors to the disease. The Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) denied his initial claim, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) upheld that denial upon review. In so holding, the BVA found that there was no medical evidence that Colvin had shown characteristic manifestations of multiple sclerosis during his active duty period or within the seven-year presumptive period. Two years later, Colvin submitted a request to reopen his claim on the basis of new evidence. This evidence consisted of testimony from doctors who asserted that Colvin’s diagnosis was in fact service connected. After his claim was denied, Colvin appealed the decision to the BVA. The BVA upheld the denial, asserting that the medical conditions Colvin had experienced were not related to his later multiple-sclerosis diagnosis, but without providing any supporting medical evidence. Colvin appealed the BVA’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holdaway, 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.