Kahana v. Shinseki
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
24 Vet. App. 428 (2011)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Rick Kahana (plaintiff) served on active duty in the United States Army from 1976 to 1979 and was granted a service-connected disability by the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for a left-knee injury. This in-service injury was well documented in Kahana’s service medical records. Kahana eventually developed problems with his right knee as well and applied for disability benefits for that condition. Kahana claimed that he had injured his right knee during service and also that his left-knee disability had contributed to his right-knee disorder because it caused him to put more pressure on his right knee. There was no conclusive evidence of this right-knee injury in his service medical records. After his claim was initially denied by the VA, Kahana appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). The board remanded the matter for additional development, including providing Kahana with a VA medical examination. The VA examiner concluded that Kahana had injured his right knee in service. Her report was lacking information in certain areas, however, and the VA sent a request to the examiner to clarify her findings. In that request, the VA stated that there had been no right-knee injury in service. When the VA examiner provided an updated report, that report concluded that Kahana had not suffered a right-knee injury in service. The board denied the claim, and Kahana appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schoelen, J.)
Concurrence (Lance, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.