Juarez v. Peake
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
21 Vet. App. 537 (2008)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Santiago Juarez (plaintiff) served on active duty from 1951 to 1954. Within a month of his discharge, he filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for service-connected-disability benefits for a back injury. In 1955, the VA denied his claim. In 1996, Juarez again applied for benefits for the same condition, claiming that he never received notice of the 1955 decision. The VA refused to reopen the claim, informing Juarez that the 1955 denial had become final and that there was insufficient new and material evidence to reopen the claim. Juarez did not appeal this decision but in 1997 filed an informal claim to reopen the matter. In 1998, the VA granted Juarez benefits for his back condition, with an effective date of 1997. Juarez appealed the effective date to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). After extensive proceedings, in 2005 the board denied an earlier effective date, finding that the claim to reopen in 1997 was the appropriate effective date because the 1996 decision had become final. The board also held that because Juarez had not been timely notified of the 1955 decision, that decision did not become final until one year after Juarez had been notified of it during the 1996 proceedings. Juarez appealed the board’s decision, claiming that the effective date should be 1954, because the 1955 denial had remained nonfinal due to lack of proper notice.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moorman, J.)
Concurrence (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.