BVA Case 06-1464: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · June 30, 2008 · MOORMAN, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
June 30, 2008
Judge
MOORMAN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdBackKneeEyeProstate

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopenKnee ConditionPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

Croy had submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen a claim for service connection for a lower back disability; (2) denied that claim on the merits; (3) denied service connection for a knee disability; (4) denied service connection for an eye disorder; (5) denied service connection for an ear disorder; (6) denied service connection for a prostate disorder; and (7) remanded a claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to a VA regional office (RO) for further development.

Croy raises three arguments on appeal: (1) that the Board lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate his lower back claim on the merits; (2) that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of the reasons or bases for its decision; and (3) that the Board failed to ensure that VA provided him with notice and assistance pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub.

Croy requested that VA reopen his claim for service connection for his lower back injury on the basis of new and material evidence, attaching evidence of his 1980 automobile accident.

The RO denied his request in July 1997, deciding that he had not presented any new and material evidence.

Croy's knee, eye, ear, and prostate claims; however, the letter discussed primarily what is required to reopen a claim based on new and material evidence.

Croy's 1980 automobile accident, which had not been before the RO in 1987, was new and material, and reopened Mr.

Rather, he argues, having determined that there was new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the lower back claim, the Board was obliged to remand the matter to the RO for an initial adjudication on the merits followed, if necessary, by a Board review of the RO's decision.

In that case, the Court addressed an identical argument, that the Board, upon determining that there was new and material evidence requiring the claim to be reopened and readjudicated on the basis of all the evidence, was required to remand the claim to the RO for such readjudication in the first instance.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownBarnett v. BrownBernard v. BrownDisabled American Veterans v. SecretaryGilbert v. DerwinskiKent v. NicholsonKutscherousky v. WestManio v. DerwinskiMlechick v. MansfieldSanders v. NicholsonSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Caluza v. BrownSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Gutierrez v. PrincipiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Mayfield v. NicholsonTucker v. WestWeaver v. PrincipiWhorter v. DerwinskiWoehlaert v. NicholsonWong Yang Sung v. Mc

Denial Type

Credibility|Not New Material

Find Similar Precedent for Your Claim

VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.

Run my claim through VetAid →