BVA Case 14-0328: Back

Yarasavych ,through counsel,appeals a November 19,2013,Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied his claim for disability compensation for peroneal nerve palsy with left foot drop (claimed as peripheral neuropathy),to include as due to exposure to herbicides.

The examiner opined that the appellant's condition was at least as likely as not related to service because he clearly developed symptoms and they have progressively worsened and [he]has been having problems with gait [and]with recurrent falls secondary to tripping.

In the subsequent January 2013 VA medical examination,the examiner found that the appellant's condition was less likely than not related to service.

In an August 2013 addendum opinion,the January 2013 VA examiner again opined that the appellant's condition was less likely than not related to service.

In the November 19,2013,decision on appeal,the Board questioned both the appellant's credibility and the diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy but concluded that even if the appellant's statements about his disability were accurate and the evidence supported a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy,the evidence did not support an award of service connection.

Relying on the VA medical examinations of record and the appellant's treatment records,the Board concluded that the appellant's current neurological disability does not fall into the regulatory definition of early onset neuropathy that manifests to a degree of 10 percent or more and therefore,service connection for this disability cannot be presumed based on herbicide exposure.

Adequate Reasons And Bases Whether a veteran is entitled to disability compensation is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard.

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.