Wilson v. Mansfield
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
506 F.3d 1055 (2007)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Douglas Wilson (plaintiff) served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from 1964 to 1974, including two tours of combat duty in Vietnam. In 1998, the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) denied Wilson’s claim for a service-connected disability for a psychiatric condition including posttraumatic stress disorder. Wilson appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board), which upheld the denial. After Wilson appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court), the parties agreed to have the case remanded to the board, because the board had failed to set forth sufficient reasons for its decision. At that point, Wilson’s counsel requested that the VA indicate any significant negative evidence in the case and inform Wilson how to rebut it. The VA did not comply with this request, and the board again denied Wilson’s claim. Wilson again appealed to the veterans court, alleging that the VA had failed to comply with the duty of notice imposed by the statutory requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a). The veterans court affirmed the board’s decision and rejected Wilson’s allegation, holding that the statute imposed a duty only to inform a claimant of the information required to be gathered at the beginning of a claim, not to analyze evidence already provided. Wilson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dyk, 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.