BVA Case 19-0001: Depression

A May 2009 private nexus opinion notes that [d]ue to the impossibility to use [the right] arm Mr.

In August 2014,the Board denied service connection for the appellant's cervical and lumbar spine disabilities, upper and lower bilateral radiculopathy and neuropathy,fatigue disability,and depression,as well as a rating greater than 30%under DC 5202 and entitlement to TDIU.

The Board found that the appellant's cervical spine and lumbar spine disabilities were not related to his service-connected right shoulder disability,nor related to his active duty service.

Additionally,the Board found the appellant did not have a clinical diagnosis of current bilateral radiculopathy of the upper or lower extremities or a diagnosis of bilateral neuropathy of the lower extremities;that the appellant's fatigue does not rise to the level of a current disability;that his depression is linked to job loss rather than his service-connected right shoulder disability or any in-service incurrence; and that evidence of his right shoulder disability did not substantiate a rating in excess of 30% under DC 5202.

Finally,the Board found that from July 2009 to December 2013,the appellant's service-connected right shoulder disability most closely approximated limitation of motion of the right arm at shoulder level;from December 2013 to June 2016,pain due to the appellant's service-connected right shoulder disability resulted in his right arm motion being limited to less than 25 degrees from the side;and since June 2016,his service-connected right shoulder disability most closely approximated limitation of motion of the right arm at shoulder level.

ANALYSIS The Board must provide a written statement of the reasons or bases for its findings and conclusions on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record;the statement must be adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.

To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence,account for the evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide its reasons for rejecting any material evidence favorable to the claimant.

He asserts that the Board also provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for denying a higher rating under DC 5202 because it failed to address the appellant's 2015 argument that the September 2009 VA examination report did not adequately take painful motion into account.