BVA Case 08-1627: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · August 10,2010 · HAGEL, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed / Vacated
Decision Date
August 10,2010
Judge
HAGEL, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdBackCervicalRespiratory

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionEffective DatePtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

Mezo's rhinitis and chronic sinusitis were allergic in nature and were not related to the blood transfusion he received during service.

Mezo VA benefits for an upper respiratory disorder,finding that there was no record of any treatment for an upper respiratory disorder during service and that the January 1998 VA examination report did not show a nexus between the claimed upper respiratory disorder and a blood transfusion during service.

Mezo's low back disorder was less likely than not related to his military service.

In the decision currently on appeal,the Board found that Mr.

Mezo's low back disorder and upper respiratory disorder were not related to his active service and that the legal criteria for an effective date prior to August 7,1995, for his award of VA benefits for burn residuals had not been met.

Mezo's claims for VA benefits for a low back disorder and an upper respiratory disorder, the Board found that there was a lack of credible evidence supporting any continuous symptoms,that the VA medical examination reports did not show a nexus between the claimed conditions and service,and that the preponderance of the evidence was,therefore,against the claims.

Mezo argues that the Board did not properly account for the lay evidence of record and that he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Mezo's other arguments, the Secretary asserts that (1)the Board did consider the lay evidence of record; (2)the Board specifically considered whether the benefit of the doubt doctrine was for application, but found that the evidence was not in equipoise;(3) Mr.

Authorities Cited

Breeden v. PrincipiBuchanan v. NicholsonButler v. PrincipiCromer v. NicholsonCuevas v. PrincipiDalton v. NicholsonDavidson v. ShinsekiDaye v. NicholsonDixon v. DerwinskiFerguson v. PrincipiHare v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiJohnson v. BrownLeonard v. NicholsonMorris v. WestNolen v. GoberRoberson v. PrincipiRusso v. BrownSee Ardison v. BrownSee Caluza v. BrownSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Gilbert v. DerwinskiSee Gutierrez v. PrincipiSee Hanson v. BrownSee Layno v. BrownSee Liteky v. United StatesSee Miley v. PrincipiSee Stefl v. NicholsonSee White v. DerwinskiShedden v. Principi

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist

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 →