Shinn v. Reinwald

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 Board, as factfinder, is permitted to interpret these results
• recognizing the Board as the fact finder, including interpreting results from an audiometric graph, and requiring the Board to discuss the results of the private audiometric testing
• noting that, because interpreting results from an audiometric graph involves fact finding, the Court is precluded from engaging in such fact finding in the first instance, and remanding in part because the Board did not discuss the results of the testing
• noting that, because interpreting results from an audiometric graph involves fact finding, the Court is precluded from engaging in such fact finding in the first instance, and remanding in part because the Board did not discuss the results of the private audiometric testing
• wherein the Court stated that it does not have the power to interpret the results of a graphic-type audiogram, and further indicating the Board is empowered to make such factual findings in the first instance
• the Court held that it could not interpret the results of an audiograph because interpretation requires a factual finding, which is not the role of the Court in the first instance, and further indicated that the Board was empowered to make such factual findings in the first instance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).