BVA Case 13-1123: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · March 27,2015 · SCHOELEN, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed / Remanded / Vacated
Decision Date
March 27,2015
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackCervicalHearing_LossShoulderHipHeadacheSkinGiArthritis

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopenHearing Loss

Why It Was Decided This Way

1 The Board decision also found that there was new and material evidence to reopen the appellant's claim for bilateral hearing loss and granted disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss.

In it,the Board found that it had fulfilled its duty to assist and no medical examination was necessary for the appellant's skin condition because there was no competent evidence showing a nexus between any incident of service and the disorder at issue.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for a skin disorder finding the preponderance of the evidence to be against the award of service connection for a skin disability.

Additionally,the Board noted that the appellant did not submit a claim for a skin disorder when he filed a claim for other conditions and that this omission weighed against him having a chronic skin condition.

Further,the appellant argues that the Board failed to explain its decision in not obtaining a VA examination.

The Secretary's duty to assist requires that he provide a VA medical examination to a claimant when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability;(2) evidence establishing that an event, injury,or disease occurred in service or,for certain diseases,manifestation of the disease during an applicable presumptive period; and (3)an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of the disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability;but (4)insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.

3 As an initial matter,when considering whether the Board erred when it found that the appellant was not entitled to a medical examination for his skin condition,the Court notes that the Board applied an incorrect standard in its McLendon analysis.

In determining that a medical examination was not warranted,the Board stated that the record did not reflect competent evidence showing a nexus between any incident of service and the disorder at issue.

Authorities Cited

Ardison v. BrownCarter v. ShinsekiCoker v. PeakeColvin v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiHyatt v. NicholsonLendon v. NicholsonLoving v. NicholsonMonzingo v. ShinsekiRose v. WestSavage v. ShinsekiSee Allday v. BrownSee Coker v. NicholsonSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hilkert v. WestSee Medrano v. NicholsonShinseki v. SandersStefl v. NicholsonWalker v. ShinsekiWaters v. ShinsekiWells v. PrincipiWood v. Derwinski

Denial Type

Credibility|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 →