BVA Case 09-1567: Back

The Court concludes that the Board erred in referring, rather than remanding or adjudicating the dental claim.

4 identified the dental claim and made a specific allegation of error�that the dental work done in service was never completed and, therefore,implicitly alleged that the RO failed to address his contention.

As conceded by the Secretary, the Board failed to discuss whether the appellant's hypertension 6 could be secondary to or aggravated by his service-connected sinusitis,including as secondary to the medication he takes for his sinusitis.

As to the appellant's claim for an increased rating for sinusitis,the Board erred because it failed to explain why it applied Diagnostic Code 6514,sphenoid sinusitis (R.

In addition,the Board erred in providing an inadequate statement of reasons or bases in denying a 30%rating for the appellant's service-connected sinus condition.

The Secretary's duty to assist includes,in appropriate cases,the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination.

The Board's determination of whether the Secretary has fulfilled his duty to assist generally is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

at 52 (when applying the clearly erroneous standard,if,after reviewing the record in its entirety,the Court finds that the Board's finding of fact is supported by a plausible basis, 'the [Court]may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as trier of fact,it would have weighed the evidence differently.