Washington v. Nicholson
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
19 Vet. App. 362 (2005)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
James Washington (plaintiff) served on active duty in the United States Army from 1966 to 1986. During the adjudication of a disability claim for a back condition, the vast majority of Washington’s service medical records were sent to, and subsequently lost by, a Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) regional office. A few years later, Washington submitted a claim for another service-connected disability related to a hip disorder that alleged began during his service in Korea. Despite extensive searches, the VA was unable to find any of Washington’s service medical records that had been previously lost. The VA did not seek alternative sources of evidence from different types of military records or inform Washington of other types of evidence that he might be entitled to submit, and it eventually denied his hip-disorder claim for lack of evidence supporting a service connection. Washington appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board upheld the denial, finding that the evidence was insufficient to support his claim and that the VA had complied with its duty to assist Washington because further efforts to recover his missing medical records would be futile. Washington appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moorman, 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.