Gobber v. Derwinski
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
2 Vet. App. 470 (1992)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Lambert Gobber (plaintiff) served in the United States Navy from 1954 to 1977, typically working near jet airplanes. After his discharge, Gobber filed a claim with the Veterans’ Administration, later named the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for a service-connected disability for hearing loss. His initial claim was denied by the VA because an examination failed to show any current hearing loss. When Gobber sought to have his claim reopened in 1983, additional testing did show hearing loss, but the VA again denied his claim, holding that there was no evidence of a service connection for his current hearing disorder. In 1989, Gobber again sought to have his claim reopened and submitted as new evidence a copy of a hearing test that allegedly showed hearing loss during his service. Gobber asserted that that he had copied the document from his service records when he was discharged. The document was not dated, however, and did not indicate the name of the person being tested. The VA refused to reopen the claim, holding that the copy of the test was not material without a date or a name of the subject. Gobber appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board affirmed the VA’s decision, holding that the copied test was not determinative of the issue in the case. Gobber appealed, and the VA moved for summary affirmance.
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.