BVA Case 14-3797: Back

Hall argues that remand is warranted because the Board (1)relied on inadequate medical opinions,(2)failed to consider continuing symptomatology,(3)provided inadequate reasons or bases for its decision,and (4)failed to ensure that the Secretary complied with the duty to assist.

Hall contends that the Board erred by relying on an October 2012 examination report because the examiner (1)failed to discuss Mr.

Hall believes rendered the examiner's no-nexus rationale inadequate,(2)did not consider secondary service connection or an aggravation theory despite noting Mr.

Hall's belief that his cervical disability was aggravated by his service-connected degenerative arthritis of the spine, (3)relied on a January 2003 regional office (RO)decision and decided a nonmedical fact,which is solely within the province of the rating officials,and based his no-nexus opinion on that nonmedical determination.

Hall correctly notes that the October 2012 examiner did not address service connection secondary to Mr.

Moreover,the Board addressed this issue and determined a medical opinion regarding secondary service connection was not warranted because there was no record evidence supporting the possibility of any such nexus other than the generalized assertions of Mr.

2010) (noting that a conclusory,generalized statement of a nexus between a claimant's present disability and service does not entitle the claimant to a medical examination because all veterans could make such a statement and such a rule would require the Secretary to provide such examinations as a 2 matter of course in virtually every veteran's disability case ).

Based on the record of proceedings (ROP),the Board's findings are plausible and not clearly erroneous, and its determination that another medical examination was not needed is not arbitrary,capricious,an abuse of discretion,or otherwise not in accordance with law.