A court citation in a VA decision usually signals a rule the adjudicator is applying. Knowing the rule can help you see whether the decision answered the right question.

It does not help to collect case names without connecting them to the facts. A medical-opinion case, for example, cannot supply a missing diagnosis. A benefit-of-the-doubt case does not make every disagreement an automatic grant.

I selected these ten decisions for the different questions they explain. This is a reference guide, not a ranking of the ten cases that decide every appeal. Some are Federal Circuit decisions; others are from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, often called the Veterans Court or CAVC.

1. Shedden: the basic service-connection questions

Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004) describes the familiar elements of direct service connection: a current disability, an in-service disease or injury or aggravation, and a relationship between them.

Use those questions to locate the actual disagreement in a denial. If VA acknowledges the injury but finds no medical connection to the current disability, more proof of the already-accepted injury may not address the gap. Presumptive and secondary theories have their own applicable rules; the three-part framework should not erase them.

2. Jandreau: lay evidence can do different jobs

Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) explains circumstances in which lay evidence can be competent and sufficient, including identifying a condition a layperson can recognize, reporting a contemporaneous diagnosis or describing symptoms that support a later professional diagnosis.

Competence is about whether someone can provide that kind of evidence. Credibility is about whether the account is believed. Weight is how persuasive it is in context. A witness can describe observable symptoms without being qualified to diagnose every underlying disease.

3. McLendon: when an examination may be required

McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006) addresses the duty to obtain an examination or opinion. The analysis includes current disability or persistent symptoms, an in-service event, an indication of a possible association and insufficient medical evidence to decide the claim.

The possible-association element has a low threshold. That does not remove the other elements or establish entitlement to benefits once an examination is ordered.

4. Barr: an examination VA provides must be adequate

Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) is important when VA undertakes to provide an examination and the resulting examination is inadequate.

Point to the actual problem: an important history that was not addressed, a question left unanswered or an explanation that does not support the conclusion. Simply disagreeing with an unfavorable result does not establish inadequacy.

5. Nieves-Rodriguez: reasoning gives an opinion value

Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008) focuses on the facts, reasoning and medical explanation supporting an opinion. Review of the claims file is not a talisman that automatically makes one opinion persuasive or another worthless.

A private opinion can be useful, and a VA opinion can be useful. Read how the clinician connects the relevant evidence to the conclusion. Our nexus-letter explanation develops that practical question.

6. Stefl: an opinion must address the relevant medical question

Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007) discusses an adequate medical opinion and the need for an analysis the Board can consider. In its context, the absence of a presumptive relationship did not eliminate the need to address direct service connection.

A statement that a condition is not on a presumptive list may not answer a supported direct-causation theory. The evidence still has to establish the relationship; the case does not create a new presumption.

7. Lynch: approximate balance concerns the weight of evidence

Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) explains that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule applies when the evidence is in approximate balance, including when it is nearly equal. It does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side.

One positive opinion and one negative opinion do not automatically create that balance. The adjudicator must assess their reasoning and weight. Lynch also does not categorically invalidate every opinion using the phrase “less likely than not.”

8. Hart: a rating can change across the period on appeal

Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) addresses staged ratings in an increased-rating claim when the facts show distinct periods with different levels of disability.

A timeline can therefore matter as much as a description of the present day. Identify when symptoms or functioning changed and which records support the change. Staging is tied to evidence, not a guarantee that every appeal receives several ratings.

9. Rice: unemployability can be part of a rating issue

Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) explains that a request for TDIU may be part of a claim for a higher rating when unemployability is raised by the claimant or the record in that context.

That does not make employment information optional. VA can still need a complete work history and other evidence to decide whether service-connected disability prevents substantially gainful work. VA's unemployability guidance explains the ordinary application process.

10. Laska: an SMC-T requirement cannot exceed the statute

Laska v. McDonough, No. 22-1018 (Vet. App. Sept. 6, 2024) rejected an additional regulatory higher-level-care requirement for SMC-T that exceeded the statute.

This is a narrower benefits question than the earlier entries. It matters when reviewing care requirements for service-connected TBI residuals. It does not mean every veteran with a TBI qualifies for SMC-T; the statutory requirements still have to be met.

Why this is not a citation-frequency leaderboard

In our September 16, 2026 data snapshot, the exact extracted label “Lynch v. McDonough” appeared 14,792 times across condition records associated with 9,312 distinct Board decisions. Other spelling and citation variants also appeared.

Those are different units. Adding the variants without deduplication could count the same decision more than once. Adding mentions across different cases would not show the number of unique appeals using at least one of them.

Frequency also does not establish importance to a particular issue. A standard citation repeated in many decisions may explain a general rule rather than determine the outcome. The right case is the one that fits the legal question in your record.

How to use the citations

Read the paragraph containing the citation, identify the rule being invoked, and compare the decision's explanation with the evidence. If you are challenging an error, an accredited representative or attorney can evaluate whether the case applies and whether later law changes the analysis.

The linked sources are court opinions, with Shedden available through a public court-text archive. This guide summarizes selected principles rather than every holding, exception or later development. Sources reviewed September 16, 2026.