BVA Case 13-0783: Psychiatric

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · April 30,2014 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
April 30,2014
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricBackHipHeartTdiuEyeHypertension

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionReopen

Why It Was Decided This Way

With respect to CAD,the RO found a current condition but that the medical opinions demonstrated that the condition was not related to drug testing in service or to RBBB found in service.

In his Substantive Appeal,the veteran argued,through counsel,that the VA opinions of record were deficient because,although they addressed whether his current heart conditions were related to drug testing in service,they failed to address whether the heart conditions were related to 4 the appellant's symptoms in service.

He therefore requested that VA conduct a new medical nexus examination.

She filed a brief with the Board,through counsel, arguing that the veteran's December 2009 statement regarding cardiac symptoms in service and the June 2010 private nexus opinion constituted sufficient evidence to reopen the previously denied claims.

However,the Board found that opinion to be without probative value because the doctor provided no supporting rationale and did not address the prior negative VA medical opinions.

5 In regard to the service connection claims for hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, the Board found that the negative VA nexus opinions of record outweighed the two private and positive nexus opinions from Dr.

The Board characterized the VA opinions as indicating that the veteran's cardiovascular conditions were not only not related to drug testing in service,but also not related to service in general.

The Board therefore found that the preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that those conditions were not related to service.

Authorities Cited

Anderson v. CityArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownDaves v. NicholsonElkins v. WestFletcher v. DerwinskiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiGuitierrez v. PrincipiHickson v. WestHorn v. ShinsekiJustus v. PrincipiKutscherousky v. WestLedford v. WestLink v. WestMonzingo v. ShinsekiPrillaman v. PrincipiReonal v. BrownRodriguez v. PeakeSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Howard v. GoberSee Kay v. PrincipiShade v. ShinsekiStefl v. NicholsonSuaviso v. NicholsonWilkinson v. Brown

Denial Type

No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam

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 →