This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in a veterans case and a Rule 36 judgment. Here is the introduction to the opinion and a link to the Rule 36 judgment.

Euzebio v. McDonough (Precedential)

Appellant, Robert M. Euzebio, appeals a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). See Euzebio v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 394 (2019). The Veterans Court affirmed the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ (“the Board”) denial of Mr. Euzebio’s entitlement to service connection for a thyroid condition “as due to exposure to Agent Orange[.]” Id. at 397; see J.A. 22 (Judgment). The Veterans Court held that, contrary to Mr. Euzebio’s arguments, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine’s (“NAS”) report, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2014 (10th Biennial Update 2016) (“NAS Update 2014”), “was not constructively before the Board” and Mr. Euzebio “ha[d] not demonstrated prejudicial error in the Board’s decision to decline to obtain a medical nexus opinion” to evaluate whether Mr. Euzebio’s thyroid condition is associated with his exposure to Agent Orange. Euzebio, 31 Vet. App. at 397.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) and (c). Because the Veterans Court applied an erroneous legal standard when it concluded the Board did not have constructive possession of the NAS Update 2014, we vacate and remand.

Rule 36 Judgment