Gregory v. Tanaka

How courts have described this case

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

• remanding claim for Board to explain why appellant’s symptoms did not fit the criteria for higher rating
• rejecting the Secretary’s interpretation of a term in a diagnostic code that was “the equivalent of ‘because I say so’ ”
• rejecting the Secretary's interpretation of a term in a diagnostic code that was \the equivalent of 'because I say so'\
• Board must explain, in the context of the facts presented, the criteria used in determining the rating category into which the veteran’s symptoms fall
• Court acknowledged that it may not review rating schedule; however, the Court may require that terms used in describing each rating be capable of validation and that the Board provide reasons or bases for decisions under the schedule
• “The Board is statutorily mandated to provide a statement of reasons or bases for its decision. If the Board is unable to do so because of a regulation’s syntax, then it may be necessary for the Secretary to change that regulation by amendment or interpretation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).