Maxson v. Gober
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
230 F.3d 1330 (2000)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Raymond Maxson (plaintiff) received surgery to remove a portion of his colon in 1938. In 1939, Maxson enlisted in the United States military, and he served on active duty, including in combat, until his discharge in 1945. During his service, Maxson was treated for malaria and diphtheria and experienced certain associated digestive disorders. However, there was no evidence that Maxson experienced or sought treatment for any medical conditions related to his colon condition from 1944 until 1989. In 1989, Maxson filed a claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) seeking benefits for service-connected aggravation of his pre-existing condition. The VA denied his claim, and Maxson appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board found that Maxson had established a well-grounded claim and was entitled to a presumption of service-connected aggravation, but also that this presumption was rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, including the absence of any evidence of any medical treatment for the complaint for more than four decades. Maxson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the board’s decision. Maxson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Newman, 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.