BVA Case 09-3092: Psychiatric

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · June 24,2011 · MOORMAN, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Affirmed / Reversed
Decision Date
June 24,2011
Judge
MOORMAN, Judge
Service Era
March 1962 to September 1962

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricBackCervicalRespiratoryEyeArthritis

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopen

Why It Was Decided This Way

Wiggins ,appeals an August 10,2009, Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision that determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for a low back disability and denied entitlement to service connection for schizoaffective disorder,a colon disability,an eye disability,and a lung disability,to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Wiggins ,the Board determined in October 2003 that Mr.

In June 2009,VA issued a Supplemental SOC (SSOC),which stated that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen a claim of service connection for a back disorder and denied entitlement to service connection for schizoaffective disorder,colon disorder,eye disorder,herbicide exposure residuals,and a lung disorder,including COPD.

Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability;(2)an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury;and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.

A finding of service connection,or no service connection,is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard in 38 U.

A factual finding 'is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.

Finally,the Board addressed whether the appellant has established a nexus between an in- service disease or injury and his current disabilies.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownAshley v. DerwinskiBerger v. BrownButler v. PrincipiCaluza v. BrownCrain v. PrincipiDaves v. NicholsonDe Perez v. DerwinskiElkins v. WestEvans v. WestFrankel v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiHeuer v. BrownHickson v. WestHilkert v. WestJones v. WestKent v. NicholsonMariano v. PrincipiPrillaman v. PrincipiSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Buchanan v. NicholsonSee Clarke v. NicholsonSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Dyment v. WestSee Jandreau v. NicholsonSee Molloy v. BrownSee Swann v. BrownSee Washington v. Nicholson

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against

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 →