Hyatt v. Nicholson
United States Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims
21 Vet. App. 390 (2007)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Paul Hyatt (plaintiff) was a veteran of the United States Marine Corps who served from 1958 to 1962. During his service, another Marine negligently stabbed Hyatt in the back with a bayonet and wounded him. The other Marine was court-martialed as a result. After his discharge, Hyatt suffered another back injury that required surgeries in 1974 and 1975. The later back injury affected the same area of his back as the bayonet wound, and the bayonet scar was incorporated into the surgical scars. In 1983, Hyatt filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for a service-connected lower-back condition. As part of his claim, Hyatt provided information identifying the person who had inflicted the bayonet wound and his court-martial. Hyatt provided records from the 1975 surgery but was unable to obtain the records from the 1974 surgery from the hospital. The VA eventually denied his claim, finding no connection between his current condition and his in-service injury. The VA again denied the claim when Hyatt had it reopened in 1988. Following the later denial, Hyatt appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board upheld the VA’s denial, holding that no nexus could be established because there was no medical evidence regarding the nature of the bayonet wound and that the VA had complied with its duty to assist. At no point during any of the proceedings did the VA or the board seek the court-martial records for the person who had wounded Hyatt. Hyatt appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kasold, 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.