Cosman v. Principi
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
3 Vet. App. 503 (1992)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Robert Cosman (plaintiff) was a combat veteran of the Vietnam War who served from 1968 to 1970. After the war and his discharge from service, Cosman abused alcohol and became an alcoholic but did not seek help for mental-health issues. In 1988, Cosman was involved in a workplace explosion that knocked him down and rendered him unconscious. Cosman began suffering psychological symptoms and was diagnosed with acute posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by a therapist. Cosman applied for disability benefits with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant). The VA denied his claim, finding that there was no service connection for his current PTSD. Cosman appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board) and requested a VA psychiatric evaluation. The VA psychiatrist found that Cosman’s alcohol abuse had been an attempt to deal with memories of combat stressors, and that the work-related explosion had resurfaced those issues, but diagnosed him with a generalized anxiety disorder. Cosman additionally submitted a private psychiatric evaluation that found he was suffering from delayed-onset PTSD rooted in his combat experiences. The board upheld the VA’s ruling that Cosman’s current condition was not service connected. Cosman appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nebeker, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

