Prinkey v. Shinseki

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that we lack jurisdiction to judge the sufficiency of a medical opinion and collecting non-precedential cases in which we have held the same
• finding that we lack jurisdiction to judge the sufficiency of a medical opinion and collecting non-precedential cases in which we have held the same
• explaining that the Veterans Court acts “as the sole appellate judge of medical evidence (except where a constitutional issue is before this court
• explaining that the Veterans Court acts “as the sole appellate judge of medical evidence (except where a constitutional issue is before this court
• averring that the medical expert’s testimony should be stricken as the expert failed to have the requisite “educa- tion, experience, [or] . . . practic[e]”
• “[T]he sufficiency of a medical opinion is a matter beyond our jurisdictional reach, because the underlying question is one of fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).