Frank E. Buczynski v. Eric K. Shinseki

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the absence of evidence does not automatically constitute substantive negative evidence
• noting that regulatory interpretation focuses on the regulatory text as well as the overall structure of the regulatory provisions
• holding a lack of notation where it would be expected, to include during treatment or examination, is noteworthy
• explaining that including limitations in one DC but not in a related DC indicates that their omission was intentional
• explaining that including a limitation in one diagnostic code but not in a related DC indicates that the omission was intentional
• explaining that the Secretary's omission from a DC of a limitation included in other DCs was an important factor in determining the plain meaning of the DC

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).