BVA Case 15-4758: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · February 14,2017 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded / Affirmed
Decision Date
February 14,2017
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
October 1985 to August 1992

Conditions Claimed

PtsdDepressionAnxietyBackCervicalKneeHearing_LossTinnitusShoulderHip

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopenKnee ConditionTdiuIncreased RatingHearing LossPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Board also granted the appellant's claim for entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus and assigned a disability rating of 10%and reopened and remanded his claims for entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches and left iliotibial band syndrome due to submission of new and material evidence.

ANALYSIS Establishing service connection generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability;(2)an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.

A finding of service connection,or no service connection,is a finding of fact reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard in 38 U.

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

The Secretary's duty to assist a disability compensation claimant includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on the claim.

This determination is reviewed by the Court under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

Whether a medical opinion is adequate is a finding of fact,which this Court reviews under the 'clearly erroneous' standard.

5 As always,the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination, adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision as well as to facilitate review in this Court.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiAllday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonBreeden v. PrincipiCaluza v. BrownDelisio v. ShinsekiFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiHeuer v. BrownHickson v. WestJandreau v. NicholsonKutscherousky v. WestLendon v. NicholsonMedrano v. NicholsonMitchell v. ShinsekiMonzingo v. ShinsekiRobinson v. PeakeRobinson v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeSee Brammer v. DerwinskiSee Clemons v. ShinsekiSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hilkert v. WestSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Pederson v. Mc

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →