BVA Case 15-3362: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · June 15,2016 · GREENE

Outcome
Affirmed
Decision Date
June 15,2016
Judge
GREENE
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeHipAnkleSkinGiEyeArthritisHypertension

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionReopen

Why It Was Decided This Way

Perry ,appeals pro se an August 24,2015, Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision that found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his previously denied claims for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip disorder,chronic bilateral ankle sprains,a bilateral knee disorder,and residuals of a right ankle sprain.

Perry's claims for entitlement to service connection for gout,stage II kidney disease,and facial scarring claimed as hyperpigmentation of facial skin and the issue of whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen his previously denied claim for entitlement to service connection for hypertension.

Among other things,the RO found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen Mr.

Perry's service-connected acne condition and scar;entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip condition,a bilateral knee disorder,bilateral shin splints,and bilateral chronic ankle sprains;and whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen his claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right ankle sprain.

ction for a bilateral hip disorder,bilateral knee disorder,and chronic ankle sprains and found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen Mr.

The Board found that service connection for any hip, knee,and ankle conditions was not warranted because the evidence of record did not establish that these conditions were etiologically related to service or to the veteran's service-connected acne keloidalis nuchae with folliculitis (including pseudofolliculitis barbae),including steroid treatment therefor.

The Board also reasoned that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen the right ankle claim because [t]here is still no competent evidence indicating that the veteran currently suffers from a right ankle disorder,much less that [it]is related to service.

Perry submitted a statement requesting that VA reopen his previously disallowed claims based on new and material evidence.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownCacciola v. GibsonDuran v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHickson v. ShinsekiIn Shade v. ShinsekiRouten v. WestSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hilkert v. WestSee Untalan v. NicholsonSmith v. WestSuaviso v. Nicholson

Denial Type

Credibility|Not New Material|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 →