BVA Case 17-0743: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · April 10,2018 · SCHOELEN, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded / Affirmed
Decision Date
April 10,2018
Judge
SCHOELEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdBackCervicalKneeTinnitusSleep_ApneaAnkleHeadacheRespiratoryGi

Issues on Appeal

SmcService ConnectionEffective DateHearing LossPtsdSleep Apnea

Why It Was Decided This Way

SCHOELEN, Judge :The appellant, Erich William Raulfestone , through counsel,appeals a January 17,2017, Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a pulmonary condition,including bronchitis and asthma; entitlement to service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS);entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability,claimed as secondary to service-connected disability of the right knee;and entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

This appeal is timely,and the Court has jurisdiction to review 1 The Board denied entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for tinnitus, service connection for gout,service connection for degenerative arthritis,service connection for rheumatoid arthritis, service connection for a bone condition,service connection for cervical radiculopathy of the bilateral upper extremities,service connection for a metabolic syndrome, and service connection for effects of chemical exposure, including drowsiness,chronic fatigue syndrome,muscle weakness, gastrointestinal problems,respiratory problems, mood swings,and nervousness.

The Secretary's duty to assist includes,in appropriate cases,the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous medical examination.

Further, 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.

The appellant argues that the Board erred by relying upon the inadequate September 2015 examination report and the October 2015 medical opinion.

As part of his duty,the Secretary must provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary to make a decision on the claim.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonBuchanan v. NicholsonFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHampton v. GoberKutscherousky v. WestLendon v. NicholsonMadden v. GoberOwens v. BrownRodriguez v. PeakeSee Allday v. BrownSee Best v. PrincipiSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Caluza v. BrownSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hilkert v. WestSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Pederson v. McSee Reonal v. BrownStefl v. NicholsonWashington v. Nicholson

Denial Type

Credibility|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 →