Gambill v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
576 F.3d 1307 (2009)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Richard Gambill (plaintiff) served in the United States Army from 1969 to 1971. During his service, a trash can fell on his head, causing a minor injury. In 1994 and 1995, Gambill was treated for bilateral cataracts. After his private physician told him that a blow to the head could cause cataracts, Gambill filed a claim for service-connected-disability benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant). The VA denied his claim for a lack of a service connection, and Gambill appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board requested a medical opinion from a VA ophthalmologist, who did not examine Gambill but instead provided a report stating that there was no medical evidence that head trauma could cause cataracts. The board informed Gambill of this report and advised him to submit any additional evidence. Gambill provided testimony from his physician and copies of articles that alleged that some types of trauma could cause cataracts. The board denied Gambill’s claim, finding that he had failed to establish a nexus between his cataracts and his in-service injury. Gambill appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court), alleging that his due-process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution had been violated because he had not been afforded the opportunity to question the VA ophthalmologist. The veterans court upheld the board’s denial, and Gambill appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence (Moore, J.)
Concurrence (Bryson, 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.