BVA Case 15-0491: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · June 20,2016 · PIETSCH

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded / Affirmed
Decision Date
June 20,2016
Judge
PIETSCH
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdPsychiatricBackCervicalHearing_LossTinnitusHipAnkleArthritisRadiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionHearing Loss

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the November 2014 decision on appeal,the Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of service connection for the claims on appeal.

The Board determined that a medical examination was not necessary to satisfy the duty to assist regarding his claims for a thoracolumbar spine condition,right sciatic radiculopathy,a cervical spine condition,a right foot condition, and right ankle conditions because the Board found no credible medical or lay evidence of an in-service event.

Relying on the June 2013 VA examination, the Board denied service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus.

Duty to Assist in Obtaining Records The appellant argues that his treatment records have been obtained only from 2012 and that, because the claims file is so short,outstanding treatment records may be missing from the record and the Secretary has failed to assist him in obtaining them.

He also argues that treatment records from his service must be missing because the Board failed to acknowledge his Reserve service and because only two pages of treatment records have been associated with his claims file.

In the case of claims for disability compensation, the Secretary's duty to assist shall include obtaining [t]he claimant's service medical records and,if the claimant has furnished the Secretary information sufficient to locate such records,other relevant records pertaining to the claimant's active military,naval,or air service that are held or maintained by a governmental entity.

396,401 (1994)( [W]here the VA is on notice that records supporting an appellant's claim may exist,the VA has a duty to assist the appellant to locate and obtain these records.

The Board's determination whether VA fulfilled its duty to assist generally is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiAllday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeCaluza v. BrownDuenas v. PrincipiGilbert v. DerwinskiHenderson v. WestKahana v. ShinsekiLendon v. NicholsonRodriguez v. PeakeSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Carbino v. WestSee Dacoron v. BrownSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Monzingo v. ShinsekiSee Nolen v. GoberSee Shinseki v. SandersSee Tucker v. WestSee Untalan v. NicholsonSolomon v. BrownStefl v. NicholsonTyrues v. ShinsekiWaters v. ShinsekiWood v. Derwinski

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Duty To Assist

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 →