BVA Case 15-4258: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · February 3,2017 · BARTLEY, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
February 3,2017
Judge
BARTLEY, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackSkin

Issues on Appeal

Service Connection

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the August 2015 decision on appeal,the Board denied service connection for hepatitis C.

As relevant here,the Board first found that the duty to assist with respect to records was satisfied because all identified and available post-service medical records are in the claims file and because [t]he [v]eteran [had]not identified any other outstanding records that are pertinent to the issue being decided.

The Board also determined that the duty to assist had been satisfied in that the 2 An odds ratio (OR)is a measure of association between an exposure and an outcome.

Alexander first argues that the Board clearly erred in determining that the duty to assist was satisfied because VA did not obtain or consider TDCJ records�which,he contends,are potentially relevant to establishing the earliest diagnosis of hepatitis C and evaluating the factual basis for the August 2014 examiner's opinion�or follow proper procedures for determining they were unavailable.

Alternatively,he contends that the Board failed to offer adequate reasons or bases to support its duty to assist determination.

The Secretary,as part of his duty to assist, shall make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit under a law administered by the Secretary.

2010)( [I]f there exists a reasonable possibility that the records could help the veteran substantiate his claim for benefits,the duty to assist requires VA to obtain the records.

If, after continued efforts to obtain 4 Federal records, VA concludes that it is reasonably certain they do not exist or further efforts to obtain them would be futile, VA must provide the claimant with oral or written notice of that fact and advise the claimant of:the identity of the records VA was unable to obtain,an explanation of the efforts VA made to obtain the records,a description of any further action VA will take regarding the claim,and notice that the claimant is ultimately responsible for providing the evidence.

Authorities Cited

Arneson v. ShinsekiCaluza v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGolz v. ShinsekiHersey v. DerwinskiKutscherousky v. WestLendon v. NicholsonNewhouse v. NicholsonNolen v. GoberPicchione v. McRaugust v. ShinsekiReonal v. BrownSee Bowling v. PrincipiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Stowers v. ShinsekiSee Wagner v. United StatesShinseki v. SandersSullivan v. McThompson v. GoberTucker v. West

Denial Type

Credibility|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam

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 →