BVA Case 12-2187: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · October 23,2013 · BARTLEY, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
October 23,2013
Judge
BARTLEY, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeHearing_LossShoulderHipHeadacheTbiHeartDiabetesRespiratory

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionReopenHearing Loss

Why It Was Decided This Way

Morgan's current hearing loss was less likely as not related to or caused by in-service noise exposure.

The audiologist further opined that hearing loss was less likely than not related to an in-service head injury because a postservice 1967 examination showed hearing within normal limits.

In May 2009,the Board found new and material evidence to reopen the respiratory condition claim and remanded the matter for a VA examination.

Morgan's left knee condition was less likely as not related to the in-service MVA because (1)there was no evidence of fracture in the left knee joint;(2)no documentation of injury to the knee joint was shown at the time of the accident;(3) current x-ray results showed only mild degenerative changes of patellofemoral joints in both knees, and (4)the scar on the left knee was superficial and .

The examiner diagnosed minimal degenerative arthritis of the hips,post-traumatic degenerative joint disease of the left shoulder,early degenerative joint disease of the left hand,plantar fasciitis,and mild degenerative joint disease (DJD)of the left knee and concluded that these were not related to military service.

The examiner opined that these conditions were likely not related to service because there was no documentation of the conditions during service and no documentation of post-traumatic MVA []bony injury.

Whether service connection is warranted is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard set forth 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.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiArdison v. BrownBagby v. DerwinskiBastien v. ShinsekiBreeden v. PrincipiColvin v. DerwinskiCosman v. PrincipiFletcher v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHensley v. BrownHensley v. WestHersey v. DerwinskiHicks v. BrownHickson v. WestHilkert v. WestKutscherousky v. WestLisio v. ShinsekiReonal v. BrownRizzo v. ShinsekiRobinson v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeSee Barr v. NicholsonSee Caluza v. BrownSee Doty v. United StatesSee Fagan v. ShinsekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Gilbert v. DerwinskiSee Gilbert v. Shinseki

Denial Type

Credibility|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 →