Esteban v. Brown
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
6 Vet. App. 259 (1994)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Leonardo Esteban (plaintiff) was injured in a motor-vehicle accident while on active duty in Japan during World War II. He suffered injuries to the right side of his face that required hospitalization for a few months. Esteban was left with four prominent scars on his face and permanent injuries to his facial muscles. In 1977, Esteban sought disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) for his injuries. The VA found that he had slight to moderate disfigurement from his facial scars and pain and awarded him a 10 percent disability rating under the VA ratings-schedule code for disfiguring scars. In 1988, Esteban sought to have his disability-ratings percentage increased due to increased numbness and pain in his face, but the VA denied any rating increase. Esteban again sought to have his disability rating increased in 1991 and presented evidence of increased pain and difficulty in mastication. The VA denied his claim, maintaining his rating at 10 percent, and Esteban appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board found that Esteban’s injuries could potentially be evaluated under three different disability-rating codes, for disfigurement, painful scars, and facial-muscle damage interfering with mastication, but that he was entitled to receive only one of the three ratings. The board therefore upheld the VA’s decision. Esteban appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kramer, 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.