opinion in a particular case. Sickels v. Shinseki, 643 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2011). Viewed correctly, the presumption is not about the person or a job title; it is about the process. A presumption exists, of course, to eliminate the burden to produce evidence. As a result, the Veterans Court did not need to examine the dictionary definition of “nurse practitioner” or to require the government to proffer evidence about the qualifications of the medical professional in this case. Repeated unnecessary remands for additional evidence complicate many cases and lead to system-wide backlogs and delays. Requiring the Board to present extensive evidence on the competence of a professional presumed to be competent is not only illogical, but adds to those delays. See Sickels, 643 F.3d at 1365 (<HOLDING>). Even though the law presumes the VA has
recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board holding the issue of use can be necessary to the adjudication by the board of adjustment of the underlying request for a variance when the issue is raised in the context of an issue the board of adjustment is required to decide recognizing that the board is not required to give reasons and bases for concluding that a medical examiner is competent unless the issue is raised by the veteran because doing otherwise would fault the board for failing to explain its reasoning on unraised issues holding that the board as constituted on the date that the original complaint was filed is the board for purposes of evaluating whether demand is required or excused holding that the district court was authorized to remand the proceedings to the board where the board failed to make required findings