Chicco v. Derwinski

Veterans Claims

Chicco v. Derwinski

1 Vet. App. 400, 1991 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 71, 1991 WL 149869

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

DecidedJuly 18, 1991

DocketNo. 90-532

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Vet. App. 400 (Chicco v. Derwinski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chicco v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 400, 1991 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 71, 1991 WL 149869 (Cal. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Joseph S. Chicco, seeks non-service-connected disability pension on the basis that his multiple joint arthritis and other disabilities prevent him from obtaining substantially gainful employment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.17 (1990). Appellee, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary), has filed a motion for summary affirmance on the grounds that a review of the record does not demonstrate any error by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA). Motion papers at 5. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) (formerly § 4052(a)).

A review of the BVA decision and record before us reveals that a remand is warranted for consideration under the principles set forth in Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990) and Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140 (1991). It also appears that appellant may have an outstanding claim under 38 U.S.C. § 351 (1988) or a claim for medical malpractice.

We remand this case to the BVA for further action consistent with this opinion. The BVA is further ordered to direct the Regional Office to examine appellant’s apparent claims under § 351 and/or for medical malpractice.

It is so Ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, Joseph S. Chicco, seeks non-service-connected disability pension on the basis that his multiple joint arthritis and other disabilities prevent him from obtaining substantially gainful employment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.17 (1990). Appellee, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary), has filed a motion for summary affirmance on the grounds that a review of the record does not demonstrate any error by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA). Motion papers at 5. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) (formerly § 4052(a)).

A review of the BVA decision and record before us reveals that a remand is warranted for consideration under the principles set forth in Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990) and Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140 (1991). It also appears that appellant may have an outstanding claim under 38 U.S.C. § 351 (1988) or a claim for medical malpractice.

We remand this case to the BVA for further action consistent with this opinion. The BVA is further ordered to direct the Regional Office to examine appellant’s apparent claims under § 351 and/or for medical malpractice.

It is so Ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Vet. App. 400, 1991 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 71, 1991 WL 149869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chicco-v-derwinski-cavc-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack