Veterans Claims· 10/15/2009

Pamela J. Sharp v. Eric K. Shinseki

Citations

23 Vet. App. 267
2009 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1801
2009 WL 3297568

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 order in which a veteran was awarded benefits was not relevant to determining eligibility to additional dependency compensation
rejecting VA interpretation of ambiguous language where the Secretary offered no support for his interpretation
rejecting VA interpretation of ambiguous language where the Secretary offered no support for his interpretation
\In the face of statutory ambiguity . . . the Court applies the rule that 'interpretative doubt is to be resolved in the veteran's favor.'\
entitlement to additional compensation for dependents is premised on any rating decision establishing compensation at the qualifying level
“Deference to the regulation that offers no additional clarity to the interpretive issue would be inappropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moorman, Lance, Davis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.