|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-677||Fed. Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2016|
Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred by creating a presumption of competency for all U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical evaluators, (including physician assistants, nurses and other non-physician health practitioners) to provide an expert opinion on any medical issue, thereby placing the burden on disabled veteran claimants, most of whom are pro se and many of whom suffer “from very significant psychiatric and physical disabilities,” to rebut the presumption by raising a competency objection, by ascertaining evidence of the evaluator’s lack of qualifications, and then by articulating specific reasons in support of the competency challenge.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 15 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 22, 2016)|
|Nov 28 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Dec 15 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 23, 2017.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Law School Veterans Clinics and Attorneys filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Disabled American Veterans filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Federal Circuit Bar Association filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Paralyzed Veterans of America filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Organization of Veterans Advocates, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Jan 12 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 22, 2017.|
|Feb 22 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including April 7, 2017.|
|Apr 5 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 8, 2017.|
|May 4 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 10, 2017.|
|May 10 2017||Brief of respondent David J. Shulkin, Secretary of Veterans Affairs in opposition filed.|
|May 24 2017||Reply of petitioner Freddie H. Mathis filed.|
|May 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.|
|Jun 19 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.|
|Jun 26 2017||Petition DENIED. Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of certiorari. (Detached). Justice Gorsuch, dissenting from denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion).|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.