BVA Case 12-3354: Ptsd

In the September 2012 decision on appeal�discussed in greater detail below�the Board denied (1)a request to reopen a claim for compensation under 38 U.

Tipton first argues that the Board failed to explain why,in light of Shade v.

Next,he asserts that the April 2010 VA spine examination is inadequate for evaluation purposes and that the Board failed to offer adequate reasons or bases for not remanding the matter for an adequate examination.

Last,the veteran argues that the Board failed to adequately explain why he was not entitled to an increased evaluation for right wrist fracture residuals based on Deluca v.

2 Although the RO reopened claims for section 1151 compensation and service connection for a low back disorder,the Board has an independent obligation to determine on de novo review whether,since the prior final decision, new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claim.

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.

Although noting that February 2002 VA treatment records submitted during the course of his attempt to reopen contained complaints of diminished smell and nasal congestion,as well as a rhinitis diagnosis,the Board determined that Mr.

And because the claims had not been reopened,the Board concluded that the duty to assist did not apply,such that VA was not required to provide a VA examination.