Robinson v. Peake
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
21 Vet. App. 545 (2008)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Marvin Robinson (plaintiff) served on active duty in the United States Navy from 1986 to 1988. Upon his discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) awarded him service-connected-disability benefits for peptic-ulcer disease. In 1998, he filed a new claim for benefits for heart and thyroid conditions, alleging that these conditions were secondary to his service-connected disability. The VA denied his claim. Robinson retained an experienced veterans-law attorney as his counsel and appealed the decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). In 2001, the board remanded the matter to the VA for further medical examinations to determine the nature, severity, and etiology of the claimed conditions. In 2002, a VA medical report found no evidence that Robinson’s heart and thyroid conditions were secondary to his service-connected ulcer disability. In 2004, the board denied a service connection for those conditions, relying on the medical report. Throughout all of these proceedings, Robinson asserted eligibility for benefits for these conditions on only a secondary basis. Robinson appealed the board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court). In that appeal, he alleged for the first time in any context that he was entitled to a direct service connection for the claimed conditions, not for them to be treated as secondary conditions related to his service-connected ulcer disease.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hagel, J.)
Dissent (Schoelen, 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.