Vanieken-Ryals v. Office of Personnel Management

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that objective medical evidence is not required to establish disability
• explaining that this court “may only address the critical legal errors, if any, committed by the [board] in reviewing OPM’s decision”
• finding that subjective evidence submitted by an applicant for disability retirement, such as testimony or written statements, may be entitled to great weight on the matter of disability, especially where such evidence is uncontradicted in the record
• stating that “[g]iving little weight to specific evidence because of its individual failings, such as the lack of qualifications of the author of a particular medical report, is a factual analysis over which we have no jurisdiction to review”
• “Giving little weight to specific evidence because of its individual failings, such as the lack of qualifications of the author of a particular medical report, is a factual analysis over which we have no jurisdiction to review.”
• ex- plaining that this court “may only address the critical legal errors, if any, committed by the [board] in reviewing OPM’s decision”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).