BVA Case 15-0594: Back

He appeals,through counsel,a December 9,2014, Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision that denied entitlement to service connection for right hand arthritis and determined that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen claims for entitlement to service connection for a nasal disorder,sleep apnea,and diabetes mellitus.

For the reasons that follow,the Court will reverse the Board's determination that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen the appellant's nasal disorder claim,vacate that part of the December 9,2014, decision denying entitlement to service connection for right hand arthritis,and remand those matters for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

The Court will affirm that part of the Board's decision finding that new and material evidence had not been 1 The Board's determination that the appellant had submitted new and material evidence with respect to his claim for entitlement to service connection for right hand arthritis and its subsequent reopening of that claim are favorable determinations,which the Court cannot disturb.

Finally,as the appellant presents no argument concerning the Board's determination that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen his diabetes mellitus claim, the Court finds that he has abandoned that matter and will, accordingly,dismiss the appeal as to that issue.

ANALYSIS The appellant first contends that the Board clearly erred when it determined that he had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his nasal disorder claim,as it did not consider whether the new evidence satisfied the low threshold set forth in Shade v.

Second,he asserts that the Board clearly erred when it determined that he had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his sleep apnea claim,as it discounted his newly submitted buddy statements regarding the onset of his sleep apnea as duplicative of the evidence already of record,rather than treating them as corroborative.

In the alternative,he argues that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases in support of those determinations.

Finally,the appellant contends that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases to support its denial of service connection for right hand arthritis,as it misstated the date of onset of his arthritis,did not adequately explain why it determined that a May 2011 VA medical opinion was adequate,and did not discuss whether service connection was warranted on the basis of continuity of symptomatology.