BVA Case 13-3414: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · September 19,2014 · SCHOELEN, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed
Decision Date
September 19,2014
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackHearing_LossTinnitusHipSkinRespiratoryGi

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopenHearing LossHip Condition

Why It Was Decided This Way

SCHOELEN, Judge :The pro se appellant, Arturo Ramirez , appeals a September 19,2013, Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied his claims for disability compensation for (1)bilateral hearing loss,(2)a lumbar spine disorder,(3)a bilateral hip disorder, (4)a right hip scar, and (5)otalgia (ear pain), to include as secondary to bilateral hearing loss, service-connected tinnitus,or both,and (6)recurrent infections,to include as caused by Agent Orange exposure.

In September 2004,the appellant underwent VA audiological and orthopedic examinations that resulted in negative medical nexus opinions.

A March 2009 rating decision denied service connection for infections and otalgia and found new and material evidence had not been submitted to warrant reopening the previously denied claims.

VA examinations conducted in April 2013 resulted in negative nexus medical opinions for all the appellant's claims.

In the September 2013 decision on appeal, the Board found that the duty to assist had been satisfied and,relying on the April 2013 medical opinion, denied the appellant's claims.

ANALYSIS A finding of service connection is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard.

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

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

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCoker v. NicholsonCoker v. PeakeDaves v. NicholsonGilbert v. DerwinskiHilkert v. WestLocklear v. NicholsonLoving v. NicholsonMonzingo v. ShinsekiOwens v. BrownRodriguez v. PeakeSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Caluza v. BrownSee Dyment v. WestSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Jandreau v. NicholsonStefl v. NicholsonWood v. Derwinski

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →