BVA Case 17-0035: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · March 30,2018 · MEREDITH, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
March 30,2018
Judge
MEREDITH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeHipHeartGiEyeArthritis

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionKnee Condition

Why It Was Decided This Way

The examiner diagnosed the appellant with GERD with a date of diagnosis of 1989,concluding that such disability is less likely than not related to a specific exposure event .

The examiner diagnosed the appellant with degenerative joint disease of the knees with a diagnosis date of the 1980s,opining that the appellant's mild degenerative joint disease of the left knee is at least as likely as not related to service because service treatment records reflected an in-service,left knee injury,abnormal x-ray changes,and swelling in the left knee,and that such knee injuries can result in maladaptive stress on the knee,which when compounded by vigorous physical activity over an extended period,can result in degenerative changes.

On November 25, 2016,the Board denied disability compensation for right knee degenerative joint disease,status post meniscectomy,and for hiatal hernia and GERD.

ANALYSIS The appellant argues that the Board erred by relying upon inadequate VA examinations in denying his disability compensation claims for hiatal hernia and GERD and for a right knee 4 disability.

Whether a medical [examination or]opinion is adequate is a finding of fact,which the 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.

As with any material issue of fact or law,the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.

With respect to the VA examinations provided to the appellant,the Board found: The [appellant]was also provided with VA examinations which,collectively, contain a description of the history of the disabilities at issue;document and consider the relevant medical facts and principles; and provide opinions regarding the etiology of the [appellant's]claimed conditions.

Authorities Cited

Abernathy v. PrincipiAllday v. BrownAllen v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonBest v. PrincipiDennis v. NicholsonEvans v. ShinsekiFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiKutscherousky v. WestMonzingo v. ShinsekiOrtiz v. PrincipiQuirin v. ShinsekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Gabrielson v. BrownSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Martin v. Occupational Safety Health Review CommSee Pederson v. McStefl v. NicholsonWise v. Shinseki

Denial Type

No Nexus|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 →