Geib v. 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 \neither the statute nor the relevant regulations require the combined effect to be addressed by a medical expert\
• concluding that a constitutional challenge did not confer jurisdiction where the claimant challenged the Board’s finding that the 12 HUDICK v. WILKIE evidence presented was inadequate
• holding that, in a TDIU determination, \VA's duty to assist does not require obtaining a single medical opinion regarding the combined impact of all service-connected disabilities.\
• holding that regulations place the responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the VA
• noting that “applicable regulations place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the [adjudicator], not a medical examiner”
• noting that “applicable regulations place responsibility for the ultimate TDIU determination on the [adjudicator], not a medical examiner”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).