Kilmer v. Tanaka

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that laws and regulations do not provide that examining psychiatrist’s opinion is “inherently more persuasive” than opinion of psychologist or registered nurse therapist
• holding that “[i]n a case where there is significant evidence in support of an appellant’s claim ..., the Board must provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the evidence was not in equipoise” so as to require application of benefit-of-the-doubt rule
• finding opinions of a VA registered nurse therapist competent medical testimony and requiring the Board to provide reasons or bases for finding those opinions unpersuasive
• finding opinions of a VA registered nurse therapist competent medical testimony and requiring the Board to provide reasons or bases for finding those opinions unpersuasive
• Board must consider and discuss the benefit-of-the- doubt doctrine where “significant evidence” supports a claim
• \Nowhere is it provided in law or regulation that opinions by the examining psychiatrists are inherently more persuasive than that of other competent mental health professionals.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).