Karnas v. Derwinski
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
1 Vet. App. 308 (1991)
- Written by Samantha Arena, JD
Facts
Martin Karnas (plaintiff), a former member of the military, applied for service-connected disability compensation in January 1975. At the time, Karnas was examined by a Veteran’s Administration (VA) psychiatrist and diagnosed with severe schizophrenia. Karnas was given a 70 percent disability rating, which was increased in July 1978 to a 100 percent rating. After several additional periodic reevaluations during which Karnas was diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia, an examination was performed in March 1987, during which the doctor affirmed the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and indicated that Karnas’s tense, anxious, and paranoid condition had not improved, reapplying the 100 percent disability level. In October 1988, another examining doctor noted that Karnas was tense, anxious, and depressed but alert and well-oriented. The VA reduced Karnas’s rating to 70 percent. Karnas appealed, and the VA affirmed the reduction. The VA reasoned that Karnas had no recent hospitalizations despite not receiving treatment, and thus, any current presentation of mental-illness symptoms was not severe enough to result in complete social and industrial inadaptability as required for a 100 percent rating. Karnas appealed against Derwinski, the secretary of the VA (defendant).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kramer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.