BVA Case 15-0416: Back

Joyner ,through counsel,appeals a December 19,2014,Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied his claim for entitlement to compensation under the provisions of 38 U.

In the decision on appeal,the Board denied the appellant's claim because the preponderance of the evidence weighed against a finding that the appellant received a blood transfusion in December 1985 and there was no evidence that the appellant incurred hepatitis B as a result of VA carelessness, negligence,lack of proper skill,error in judgment, or similar instance of fault,or an event that was not reasonably foreseeable.

ANALYSIS The appellant argues in his principal brief that (1)the Board did not provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its denial of the disability compensation claim;(2)VA violated its duty to assist by failing to provide the appellant with a medical examination for his claimed hepatitis B;and (3)the Board hearing officer failed to suggest the submission of evidence during the November 2011 Board hearing.

A Board determination regarding entitlement to compensation under section 1151 is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review set forth in 38 U.

133,146-47 (2005)(en banc)(noting that a Board 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' (emphasis omitted)(quoting Gilbert v.

To comply with this requirement, 4 the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.

In support of his argument, the appellant alleges that the Board failed to acknowledge the existence of documents indicating the appellant actually underwent two surgeries �one for his forearm and one for his hand.

Here,the Board considered the appellant's contention that he had hepatitis B as a result of the 1985 hand surgery,but found,after reviewing the available medical records from 1985 and 1986, that the appellant's lay statements lacked credibility.