Tyrues v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
732 F.3d 1351 (2013)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Larry Tyrues (plaintiff) was a veteran who served in the Persian Gulf from 1990 to 1991. In 1995, Tyrues filed for benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for a lung disability. Tyrues submitted his claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1110, as a disease or injury incurred in the line of duty, and also separately under 38 U.S.C. § 1117, which provided a presumption of a service-connected disability for Persian Gulf veterans. Tyrues’s claims eventually came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). In 1998, the board issued a decision that explicitly denied benefits under § 1110, informed Tyrues of his appeal rights for that decision, and remanded the issue of § 1117 benefits for additional development of evidence. Tyrues did not appeal that decision. In 2004, the board finally denied eligibility for § 1117 benefits. Tyrues then sought to appeal both the 1998 denial of § 1110 benefits and the 2004 denial of § 1117 benefits. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court) affirmed the 2004 decision but held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the 1998 decision because Tyrues had failed to raise a timely appeal. Tyrues appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Taranto, J.)
Dissent (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.
