82:
205:
from impeachment or contradiction by evidence or known facts, is not justifiable basis for denying the application of the reasonable doubt doctrine if the entire, complete record otherwise warrants invoking this doctrine. The reasonable doubt doctrine is also applicable even in the absence of official records, particularly if the basic incident allegedly arose under combat, or similarly strenuous conditions, and is consistent with the probable results of such known hardships. (
24:
204:
It is a substantial doubt and one within the range of probability as distinguished from pure speculation or remote possibility. It is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence. Mere suspicion or doubt as to the truth of any statements submitted, as distinguished
200:
When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. By reasonable doubt is meant one which exists because of an approximate
224:
In applying this rule to Mr. Gilbert's claim, the Court noted that BVA had not provided adequate reasons and bases, or a legal explanation in its decision, as to why the benefit of the doubt rule did not apply to the claim. Since there were insufficient reasons and bases, the claim was
221:. In other words, when the evidentiary value of the negative evidence against the Veteran's claim is the same as the evidentiary value of the positive evidence for the Veteran's claim, reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of the Veteran.
169:(BVA) upheld the denial of the back condition, stating that any residual back injury that occurred during service was acute and transitory in nature. BVA also held that the benefit of the doubt rule did not apply to this case.
318:
197:
It is the defined and consistently applied policy of the
Department of Veterans Affairs to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case.
161:
Mr. Norman
Gilbert was claiming service connection for a back injury. Specifically, he claimed that he injured his back while falling with a machine gun in his arms while serving in
150:
92:
323:
286:
267:
81:
241:
the claim back to BVA for a new decision detailing why the
Veteran was not entitled to the benefit of the doubt under the law.
186:
166:
123:
238:
226:
213:
The Court, in explaining how this applies to the weighing of evidence in
Veterans claims, used a rule used in
218:
178:
193:. Last in stringency order would be the "reasonable doubt standard" which is defined regulatorily as:
201:
balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim.
34:
181:
against the "benefit of the doubt" rule. In criminal law, the burden of proof used is beyond a
263:
190:
182:
53:
312:
138:
Nebeker (Chief Judge), Kramer (Associate Judge), and Farley (Associate Judge)
43:
23:
214:
153:
case that dealt with the "benefit of the doubt" rule in veterans law.
162:
177:
In this decision, the Court compared and contrasted the various
17:
262:. United States: West Academic Publishing. pp. 308–315.
319:
United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims cases
189:, followed by the "fair preponderance" standard used in
48:
38:
134:
129:
119:
114:
106:
98:
88:
74:
281:
279:
151:United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
93:United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
8:
80:
71:
250:
7:
287:"38 C.F.R. §3.102 Reasonable doubt"
14:
229:back to BVA for a new decision.
185:. Next in the spectrum would be
22:
324:1990 in United States case law
260:Veterans law: Cases and Theory
1:
187:clear and convincing evidence
293:. Government Printing Office
340:
217:sandlot folklore that the
167:Board of Veterans' Appeals
124:Board of Veterans' Appeals
79:
258:Ridgway, James (2015).
37:, as no other articles
219:tie goes to the runner
211:
195:
110:1 Vet. App. 49 (1990)
146:Gilbert v. Derwinski
75:Gilbert v. Derwinski
56:for suggestions.
46:to this page from
269:978-1-62810-348-9
142:
141:
70:
69:
331:
303:
302:
300:
298:
283:
274:
273:
255:
191:civil litigation
183:reasonable doubt
130:Court membership
102:October 12, 1990
84:
72:
65:
62:
51:
49:related articles
26:
18:
339:
338:
334:
333:
332:
330:
329:
328:
309:
308:
307:
306:
296:
294:
285:
284:
277:
270:
257:
256:
252:
247:
235:
179:burden of proof
175:
159:
66:
60:
57:
47:
44:introduce links
27:
12:
11:
5:
337:
335:
327:
326:
321:
311:
310:
305:
304:
275:
268:
249:
248:
246:
243:
234:
231:
207:emphasis added
174:
171:
158:
155:
140:
139:
136:
135:Judges sitting
132:
131:
127:
126:
121:
117:
116:
112:
111:
108:
104:
103:
100:
96:
95:
90:
86:
85:
77:
76:
68:
67:
61:September 2023
54:Find link tool
30:
28:
21:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
336:
325:
322:
320:
317:
316:
314:
292:
288:
282:
280:
276:
271:
265:
261:
254:
251:
244:
242:
240:
232:
230:
228:
222:
220:
216:
210:
208:
203:
202:
194:
192:
188:
184:
180:
172:
170:
168:
165:in 1956. The
164:
156:
154:
152:
148:
147:
137:
133:
128:
125:
122:
120:Appealed from
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
94:
91:
87:
83:
78:
73:
64:
55:
50:
45:
41:
40:
36:
31:This article
29:
25:
20:
19:
16:
297:December 12,
295:. Retrieved
290:
259:
253:
236:
223:
212:
206:
199:
198:
196:
176:
160:
145:
144:
143:
115:Case history
58:
32:
15:
313:Categories
245:References
237:The Court
157:Background
52:; try the
39:link to it
42:. Please
239:remanded
233:Decision
227:remanded
215:baseball
173:Analysis
107:Citation
99:Decided
266:
35:orphan
33:is an
163:Korea
149:is a
89:Court
299:2016
291:eCFR
264:ISBN
315::
289:.
278:^
301:.
272:.
209:)
63:)
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
