Moore v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
555 F.3d 1369 (2009)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Dwayne Moore (plaintiff) served on active duty in the military from 1988 until 1991. During his service, Moore attempted to cut his wrists and was hospitalized in a military hospital psychiatric ward. A military psychiatrist found that Moore suffered from a severe personality disorder and should be separated from the service, and Moore was given a medical discharge. In 1992, Moore filed a claim for service-connected-disability benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant). The VA initially denied his claim, but when Moore had his case reopened in 1999, the VA granted him service-connected benefits rated at 10 percent effective back to 1992. Moore appealed the rating level to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board kept the 10 percent rating for 1992 to 1997 but increased the rating to 30 percent for 1997 to 2002 and to 50 percent from 2002 onward. At no point during the adjudication process, however, did the board or the VA obtain the medical records from Moore’s in-service psychiatric hospitalization. Moore appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court) challenging the ratings and arguing that the VA had failed to meet its obligation to obtain and review his medical records. The veterans court upheld the board’s decision, holding that the records were not relevant because they pre-dated Moore’s initial disability claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mayer, 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.