BVA Case 14-3690: Depression

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · December 10,2015 · SCHOELEN, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
December 10,2015
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

DepressionPsychiatricBackCervicalKneeHearing_LossTinnitusSleep_ApneaHipHeadache

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionKnee ConditionHearing LossSleep Apnea

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Board found the February 2009 examination inadequate because the examiner failed to provide an opinion regarding whether the appellant's bilateral leg and neck conditions were aggravated by his service-connected conditions.

The Board also found that the examination regarding 3 sleep apnea did not address pertinent evidence that contradicted the examiner's findings.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for disability compensation for (1)a bilateral knee disorder,to include as secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine disability or any other service-connected disability;(2)a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine disability or any other service-connected disability;(3)sleep apnea, to include as secondary to his service-connected major depressive disorder;(4)headaches,to include as secondary to a service-connected disability;(5)a bilateral hand disorder,to include as secondary to a service-connected disability;and (6)a sleep disorder,to include as secondary to a service-connected disability.

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 5 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.

The Secretary's duty to assist includes, in appropriate cases, providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on the claim.

Although VA need not provide a medical examination in all cases, once the Secretary undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim,he must provide an adequate one.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiAllday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonBerger v. BrownBrammer v. DerwinskiCaluza v. BrownCoker v. PeakeComer v. PeakeGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHarris v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiHickson v. WestHilkert v. WestRoberson v. PrincipiRobinson v. PeakeRobinson v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeSee Coker v. NicholsonSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hampton v. GoberSee Monzingo v. ShinsekiSee Rizzo v. ShinsekiSee Robinson v. ShinsekiSee Swann v. BrownStefl v. NicholsonSzemraj v. Principi

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam|No Current Disability

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 →