Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
580 F.3d 1270 (2009)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Angel Vazquez-Flores (plaintiff) was a veteran who was granted a service-connected disability for nephrolithiasis. In 1994, Vazquez-Flores petitioned the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for an increased rating for his disability. During proceedings between the VA and Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board), the VA issued a number of statements of the case that provided notice to Vazquez-Flores about certain evidentiary issues, including a reference to some of the diagnostic codes under which his claim could be evaluated. The VA eventually denied his claim, and Vazquez-Flores appealed to the board. The board upheld the denial after evaluating Vazquez-Flores’s condition under certain diagnostic codes, including one that the VA had not referenced in its statements. Vazquez-Flores appealed the board’s decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court), alleging among other claims that the VA had provided inadequate notice by not referencing all of the potential codes under which his disability might be evaluated. The veterans court remanded the case back to the board, agreeing that, among other specific information, the VA’s notice for an increased-rating claim must include all relevant diagnostic codes that might be considered. The VA appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Prost, 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. 46,400 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.