Warren v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
March 1998
most recently cited
Relationships
Applies 38 U.S.C. § 1110 · 38 U.S.C. § 1112 · 38 U.S.C. § 5108 · 38 U.S.C. § 7252
Relies on Gilbert v. Derwinski · Colvin v. Derwinski · Manio v. Derwinski · Espiritu v. Derwinski · Tirpak v. Derwinski
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]ny statement of appellant as to what a doctor told him is also insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis. See Espiritu [v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 495 (1992)]. While such a statement may trigger [VA’s] duty to assist to contact a physician in an appropriate case, see Ivey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 320 (1992); White [ (Frank) ] v. Derwinski 1 Vet.App. 519 (1991), certainly here, where the doctor’s statement is framed in terms such as “could have been,” no such duty existed. See Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992) (doctor’s opinion expressed in terms of “may or may not” is not a .sufficient basis for a well-grounded claim).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robinette v. Brown
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.