BVA Case 16-3963: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · October 26,2017 · SCHOELEN, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed
Decision Date
October 26,2017
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackHearing_LossGiArthritis

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionHearing Loss

Why It Was Decided This Way

SCHOELEN, Judge :The appellant, Milton Hamberry,through counsel,appeals a September 30,2016 Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied a disability compensation claim for a lumbar spine disability 1 .

In the September 30,2016,decision here on appeal,the Board found that the Secretary had satisfied his duty to assist the appellant by securing all available service treatment records and post service medical records.

The Board noted the Secretary's attempts to retrieve medical 3 records from the VAMC and found that any other attempts to assist the appellant with obtaining additional evidence would be futile,so the duty to assist was satisfied.

The Board found that the July 2015 VA medical opinion is entitled to great probative weight, as it was provided after examination of the appellant and review of the claims file, it addressed the appellant's assertion as to the etiology of the disability and his lay testimony regarding continuing pain,and provided a detailed rationale for its conclusion.

Based on the evidence presented,the Board denied the appellant's claim.

Once the Secretary undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a service-connection claim,even if not statutorily obligated to do so,he must provide an adequate one.

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

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.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCacciola v. GibsonCaluza v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiDonnellan v. ShinsekiDyment v. PrincipiDyment v. WestGilbert v. DerwinskiGrivois v. BrownHyatt v. NicholsonLoving v. NicholsonMonzingo v. ShinsekiOwens v. BrownRodriguez v. PeakeSanders v. ShinsekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Kahana v. ShinsekiSee Kowalski v. NicholsonSee Pederson v. McSee Skoczen v. ShinsekiStefl v. NicholsonStegall v. West

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 →