Golz v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
590 F.3d 1317 (2010)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Julius Golz (plaintiff) served on active duty in the United States Navy from 1969 to 1972. In 1995, the Social Security Administration (SSA) determined that Golz was disabled due to back and leg pain caused by a car accident in 1991. The SSA decision made no mention whatsoever of any psychiatric disorders suffered by Golz. In 2001, Golz filed a claim for a service-connected disability for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant). A VA psychiatric examination found that Golz suffered from major depressive disorder and substance dependence but did not have PTSD, and his claim was denied. In 2003, Golz’s claim was reopened and again denied. Golz appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board), alleging among other claims that the VA had failed in its duty to assist him in developing his claim by not obtaining the SSA medical records. The board upheld the denial and also held that the VA did not fail in its duty to assist Golz by not reviewing the SSA medical records, because they were not relevant to his claim. Golz appealed the board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court). The veterans court upheld the decision, finding that the SSA medical records were not relevant because the SSA decision made no mention of psychiatric disorders. Golz appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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.
