BVA Case 14-2683: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · July 8,2015 · MOORMAN, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
July 8,2015
Judge
MOORMAN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdPsychiatricBackCervicalKneeAnkleHeadacheEye

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionKnee ConditionPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

ANALYSIS Establishing service connection generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability;(2)an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.

A finding of service connection,or no service connection,is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard in 38 U.

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.

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

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 for which the claimant qualifies;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.

This determination is reviewed by the Court under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

This is a classic factual assessment, involving the weighing of facts, and the Board's findings are subject to the 'clearly erroneous' standard of review.

[T]his element requires only that the evidence 'indicates' that there 'may'be a nexus between the two.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownCarthy v. MadiganFrankel v. DerwinskiFugere v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiHeuer v. BrownHickson v. WestHoward v. GoberIn Scott v. McLendon v. NicholsonLoving v. NicholsonMaggitt v. WestOwens v. BrownRodriguez v. PeakeSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Hilkert v. WestSee Swann v. BrownSimon v. DerwinskiStefl v. NicholsonWaters v. ShinsekiWells v. Principi

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →