Gallegos v. Principi
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
283 F.3d 1309 (2002)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Raymond Gallegos (plaintiff) filed a claim in 1993 for a service-connected disability for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant). The VA denied his claim. In 1994, Gallegos’s representative, a veterans’ service organization, filed a letter with the VA that stated that further development of evidence for Gallegos’s claim was warranted. The letter, however, did not expressly request appellate review of the denial. Gallegos took no additional action on the matter until 1997, when he filed an application to reopen his claim. The VA then granted his claim, with an effective date of 1997. Gallegos filed an appeal, claiming that the benefits should be effective back to 1993. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board) denied this early effective date, holding that the 1994 letter was not an effective notice of disagreement (NOD) with the original denial of benefits, because the letter did not comply with a VA regulation that required NODs to include an indication of a desire for appellate review. Gallegos appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court). The veterans court reversed the board’s decision, holding that the VA regulation was invalid under the holding of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The VA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rader, J.)
Dissent (Gajarsa, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.