BVA Case 07-0911: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · December 30,2008 · SCHOELEN, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed / Remanded
Decision Date
December 30,2008
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackCervicalShoulderHipEyeArthritis

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionIncreased Rating

Why It Was Decided This Way

Griffin,through counsel,appeals a December 18,2006,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board or BVA)decision in which the Board denied his claims for entitlement to service connection for a right acromioclavicular joint disability and entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20%for residuals of fractures of the right humerus.

The pain and functional loss in the right shoulder,in the examiner's opinion,were not service-connected, but rather the result of progressive rotator cuff disease.

Second,the Board found that,for purposes of direct service connection, the requirement of an inservice injury is met.

However,based on the November 1996,May 1997,August 2000 and November 2005 medical opinions,the Board found that there was no relationship between the appellant's in-service injury and his current shoulder disabilities, osteoarthritis,arthrosis and rotator cuff disease.

Although the Board found that the appellant's lay evidence regarding his continuous pain since service was credible and ultimately competent, the Board found that no medical professional has ever linked that pain to the in-service injury or to the current disability.

Accordingly,because [f]or service connection to be established by continuity of symptomatology,there must be medical evidence that relates a current condition to that symptomatology, the Board denied service connection for a right acromioclavicular joint disability based on continuity of symptomatology.

The Board first noted that the appellant already had a 20%disability rating;therefore the Board found that only ratings at or above 20%will be considered.

The Board found that the evidence does not present a question of which of two evaluations to apply,under any of the potentially applicable diagnostic codes.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownBarr v. NicholsonBowling v. PrincipiCaluza v. BrownColvin v. DewinskiEvans v. WestFletcher v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHeuer v. BrownHodge v. WestKutscherousky v. WestMittleider v. WestPernorio v. DerwinskiSavage v. GoberSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Best v. PrincipiSee Caluza v. BrownSee Dyment v. WestSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hickson v. WestSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Sanders v. WestStefl v. NicholsonStegall v. WestWeaver v. Principi

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam

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 →