Nakea 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 \compensating a claimant twice (or more) for the same symptomatology\ is impermissible because \such a result would overcompensate the claimant for the actual impairment of [] earning capacity\
• holding that the rating schedule may not be employed as a vehicle for compensating a claimant twice or more for the same symptomatology because such a result would overcompensate the claimant for the actual impairment of his earning capacity and would constitute pyramiding
• stating that a claimant may not be compensated twice for the same symptomatology as \such a result would over compensate the claimant for the actual impairment of his earning capacity\
• interpreting 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 and concluding that compensating a claimant twice for the same symptomatology \would overcompensate the claimant for the actual impairment of his earning capacity\
• Court would not reach merits of a claim because the veteran had not yet obtained a rating decision on the claim
• \the rating schedule may not be employed as a vehicle for compensating a claimant twice (or more) for the same symptomatology; such a result would overcompensate the claimant for the actual impairment of his earning capacity.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).