Veterans Claims· 1/6/2011
Frank E. Buczynski v. Eric K. Shinseki
Citations
- 24 Vet. App. 221
- 2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 29
- 2011 WL 37846
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).
Judges: Davis, Lance, Moorman
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
16 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Rick K. Kahana v. Eric K. ShinsekiVeterans Claims· 2011-06-15· cited 402×
- Robert Fountain v. Robert A. McDonaldVeterans Claims· 2015-02-09· cited 101×
- Dale S. Horn v. Eric K. ShinsekiVeterans Claims· 2012-06-21· cited 64×
- Az v. ShinsekiFederal Circuit· 2013-09-30· cited 54×
- David J. Jones v. Eric K. ShinsekiVeterans Claims· 2012-10-26· cited 39×
- Ulysses Copeland v. Robert A. McDonaldVeterans Claims· 2015-06-25· cited 35×
- Robert L. Trafter v. Eric K. ShinsekiVeterans Claims· 2013-04-29· cited 17×
- Andrea M. McNair v. Eric K. ShinsekiVeterans Claims· 2011-11-18· cited 4×
- Molitor v. ShulkinVeterans Claims· 2017-06-01· cited 2×
- Jaclyn R. Molitor v. David J. ShulkinVeterans Claims· 2017-06-01
- Thomas I. Lyles, Jr. v. David J. ShulkinVeterans Claims· 2017-11-29
- Richard Chudy v. Peter O' RourkeVeterans Claims· 2018-06-14
- Justiniano Delrio v. Robert L. WilkieVeterans Claims· 2019-12-19
- Michael L. Chavis v. Denis McDonoughVeterans Claims· 2021-04-16
- Rocco v. Perciavalle v. Denis McDonoughVeterans Claims· 2021-12-03
- Harriet H. Kriner v. Denis McDonoughVeterans Claims· 2023-10-25
Cites
26 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anderson v. City of Bessemer CitySupreme Court· 1985-03-19· cited 11,658×
- Gilbert v. DerwinskiVeterans Claims· 1990-10-12· cited 2,831×
- Russello v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1983-11-01· cited 2,703×
- Kutscherousky v. WestVeterans Claims· 1999-05-04· cited 2,049×
- Brown v. GardnerSupreme Court· 1994-12-12· cited 1,044×
- Caluza v. BrownVeterans Claims· 1995-04-12· cited 757×
- McLendon v. NicholsonVeterans Claims· 2006-08-07· cited 589×
- Rezi P. Forshey, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary of Veterans AffairsFederal Circuit· 2002-04-01· cited 453×
- Barney J. Stefl v. R. James NicholsonVeterans Claims· 2007-03-27· cited 393×
- Allday v. BrownVeterans Claims· 1995-04-14· cited 363×
- Gabrielson v. BrownVeterans Claims· 1994-09-20· cited 293×
- Kay v. PrincipiVeterans Claims· 2002-12-19· cited 252×
- William A. Smith, Claimant-Appellee v. Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans AffairsFederal Circuit· 1994-08-12· cited 231×
- Fred P. Gardner, Claimant-Appellee v. Jesse Brown, Secretary of Veterans AffairsFederal Circuit· 1993-09-13· cited 221×
- Bethesda Hospital Assn. v. BowenSupreme Court· 1988-04-04· cited 217×
- Gardner v. DerwinskiVeterans Claims· 1991-11-25· cited 212×
- Ardison v. BrownVeterans Claims· 1994-04-04· cited 115×
- Johnston v. BrownVeterans Claims· 1997-01-29· cited 95×
- Moore v. ShinsekiFederal Circuit· 2009-02-10· cited 60×
- Meeks v. WestVeterans Claims· 1999-05-03· cited 57×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.