|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).|
Wait wut.. RBG ghost-wrote the equal protection bits of Obergefell?!
And I learned this on @SCOTUSblog’s TikTok?! https://www.tiktok.com/@scotusblog/video/6922179577724931333
"This is not our first commission rodeo” says Levy. 😉
Love this write up of the @BrookingsInst's panel yesterday with @Susan_Hennessey, @danepps,@cdkang76, and @mollyereynolds.
Thanks, @SCOTUSblog and Kalvis Golde!
Spilling SCOTUS tea on TikTok today. Well, actually, @eskridgebill spilled the tea, we just tok’d about it. 🍵
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
In this morning's orders list, SCOTUS took no action on pending cert petitions involving:
- Mississippi's near-ban on abortions after 15 weeks,
- a Trump rule banning Title X clinics from providing abortion referrals,
- the Trump administration's "public charge" immigration rule.
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.