BVA Case 04-0584: Ptsd

In my opinion he is allergic to certain paints and vapo[r]and these occa[s]ional respiratory symptoms are not related to the exposure of fumes in Gulf War.

or injury in service [by way of]lay or medical evidence ;and (3) a nexus between the in-service injury or disease and the current disability [by way of]medical evidence.

RO for consideration of benefits based upon presumptive service connection,whereas in Roebuck ,the Board denied one theory and expressly stated that it would issue a second Board decision on the second theory.

Elkins had presented new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for back injuries,whether he had presented a well grounded claim for headaches,and whether the medical reports furnished with his headache claim support a claim for neck injuries),its review of our Court's decision with respect to the headache and neck matters would not disrupt the orderly process of adjudication below with respect to the remanded [back injury]claim.

Unlike the factual circumstances presented in Bingham ,however,where the Board denied a claim for service connection on one theory and was silent as to other theories of service connection,in the present case,the Board specifically remanded a separate theory for development,thereby foreclosing any argument that its denial of direct service connection could be interpreted as a final decision on the separate theory of presumptive service connection.

While it does not fall to this Court to design or redesign the VA adjudication process,it is our province to consider a timely appeal from a claimant who has been denied relief based on one theory,has received notice of his appellate rights,and who argues that the Board erred in issuing the denial.

In such a case,the Court can then determine whether the benefits denied or limited are inextricably intertwined with a remanded issue or claim,or whether the Board erred in issuing the denial or limitation of benefits that was appealed.

Parties are well-served by a process that allows the Court to review assertedly final decisions to determine (1)whether one issue on which the Board denied benefits is inextricably intertwined with other issues that the Board remanded,and (2)whether such a Board decision should be reversed,modified,or the matter remanded,based on Board error,including misapplication of the law,failure to develop a complete record,or other defects that would otherwise not be addressed for years thereafter.