Deshotel v. Nicholson
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
457 F.3d 1258 (2006)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
James Deshotel (plaintiff) served in the United States Army from 1965 to 1969. During his service, he suffered a concussion and shoulder injuries in a car accident. In 1969, Deshotel filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for disability benefits for his shoulder injury and for residual-head-injury claims. He received a service connection for his shoulder but not for any head injury. In 1984, Deshotel filed an application to reopen his denied claim. In 1985, the VA granted service connection for post-head-trauma headaches. The decision did not specifically address any implied claim for psychiatric disabilities, and Deshotel did not appeal the decision. In 1999, Deshotel again sought to reopen his claim, including claims for memory loss and depression. The VA increased his rating for head trauma and headaches but denied a service connection for any psychiatric disability. Deshotel appealed, and the VA eventually granted him a service connection for psychiatric effects, effective from 1999. Deshotel appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board), arguing that the benefit should date from 1984. The board held that the 1985 decision had implicitly denied such claims, and Deshotel appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court). The veterans court dismissed Deshotel’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the 1985 decision constituted a final decision. Deshotel again appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dyk, 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.