BVA Case 12-0444: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · March 29,2013 · SCHOELEN, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Affirmed / Remanded
Decision Date
March 29,2013
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackAnkleSkinRadiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionIncreased Rating

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the other decision,the Board denied entitlement to disability compensation for back and left leg disabilities,finding that the appellant's back condition is not related to service nor a result of his service-connected ankle disability and that he does not currently have a left leg disability.

Duty To Assist �Records For Ankle and Penile Condyloma Claims The Secretary has a duty to assist claimants in developing their claims.

The Secretary's duty to assist includes making reasonable efforts to obtain all potentially relevant records that the appellant adequately identifies and authorizes the Secretary to obtain.

The Board's determination that VA has satisfied the duty to assist 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.

As always,the Board must provide a statement of reasons or bases for its determination,adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision as well as to facilitate review in this Court.

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

The appellant argues that the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for its finding that VA fulfilled its duty to assist in obtaining identified medical records.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownAllen v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NichonsonBuchanan v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHyatt v. NicholsonIn Thun v. PeakeJandreau v. NicholsonJohnston v. BrownMoore v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeSee Anderson v. ShinsekiSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Martin v. Occupational Safety Health Review CommSee Shedden v. PrincipiSee Shinseki v. SandersSee Tucker v. WestSee Washington v. NicholsonStefl v. Nicholson

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam|No Current Disability

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 →