BVA Case 11-0243: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · April 2,2012 · HOLDAWAY, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Affirmed / Remanded
Decision Date
April 2,2012
Judge
HOLDAWAY, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeHipRadiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionReopen

Why It Was Decided This Way

HOLDAWAY, Judge :The appellant appeals the September 28,2010,decision of the Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)that determined that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen his claim for service connection for bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, claimed as secondary to Agent Orange exposure and denied entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity peripheral neuropathy,claimed to be due to Agent Orange exposure.

In March 2005,the RO determined that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the appellant's claim for service connection for bilateral upper extremity neuropathy and denied service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right hip and legs.

On September 28,2010,the Board issued its decision in which it determined that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen the appellant's claim for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the upper extremities claimed as secondary to exposure to herbicides and denied service connection for peripheral 2 neuropathy of the right lower extremity,also claimed as secondary to exposure to herbicides.

5108, [i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed,the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.

New and material evidence is defined as follows: New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers.

New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened,and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.

The Board's determination of whether new and material evidence was submitted is reviewed under the clearly erroneous'standard of review.

A 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.

Authorities Cited

Anderson v. CityBonhomme v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownCoker v. NicholsonCoker v. PeakeFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHeuer v. BrownHickson v. WestHilkert v. WestKutscherousky v. WestLendon v. NicholsonLocklear v. NicholsonRogozinski v. DerwinskiSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Swann v. BrownShade v. ShinsekiWaters v. ShinsekiWoehlaert v. Nicholson

Denial Type

No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →