BVA Case 14-1811: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · October 7,2016 · HAGEL, Chief Judge

Outcome
Reversed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
October 7,2016
Judge
HAGEL, Chief Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdDepressionPsychiatricBackKneeHipSkinHeartEye

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionEffective DateReopenKnee ConditionPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

Hill ,appeals through counsel that part of an April 7,2014,Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)decision that (1)found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen a previously and finally denied low back disability claim, and (2) denied entitlement to benefits based on service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder,to include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Accordingly,the Court's October 30,2015,memorandum decision is withdrawn;this decision is issued in its stead; that part of the April 7,2014,Board decision that found that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim for a back disability is reversed;that part of the April 2014 Board decision that denied service connection for PTSD is vacated;and the matters are remanded for readjudication consistent with this decision.

In a June 2009 rating decision,the RO denied the appellant's claim for PTSD (now bifurcated from his claim for memory loss)and determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the low back claim.

However[,]at this time[,] the veteran's chronic back pain is not service connected.

In July 2010,the RO issued a Statement of the Case continuing the denial of the appellant's PTSD claim and reaffirming that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his low back claim.

In April 2014,the Board issued the decision currently on appeal,finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the appellant's low back claim and denying benefits based on service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability,to include PTSD.

The appellant also argues that the Board clearly erred in determining that he did not submit new and material evidence to reopen his low back disability claim.

Specifically, he argues that his September 2011 lay testimony as well as the articles he submitted indicating that lightning strikes can cause musculoskeletal damage are new and material to the issue of whether the appellant's current low back disability was aggravated by service.

Authorities Cited

Amico v. WestBiggins v. DerwinskiButts v. BrownDonnellan v. ShinsekiDuran v. BrownHarris v. WestPaulson v. BrownRoberson v. PrincipiSee Gallegos v. PrincipiSee Hampton v. GoberSee Justus v. PrincipiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Lane v. PrincipiSee Medrano v. NicholsonSee Osman v. PeakeSee Owens v. BrownSee Pederson v. McSee Sharp v. ShinsekiSee Struck v. BrownSee Wagner v. PrincipiSmith v. GoberSmith v. ShinsekiSuaviso v. Nicholson

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Not New Material

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 →