BVA Case 19-0734: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · April 8,2020 · ALLEN, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
April 8,2020
Judge
ALLEN, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHearing_LossTinnitusHipHeartTdiu

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionTdiuHearing LossPtsdHip Condition

Why It Was Decided This Way

3 Because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of its reasons or bases,we set aside its decision concerning appellant's claims for bilateral hip disorder,bilateral lower extremity disorder,Alzheimer's disease, and TDIU and remand those matters for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

ANALYSIS Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2)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.

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

Low Back ,Heart Condition,Acquired Psychiatric Disorder,and PTSD Appellant argues that the Board erred in relying on August 2017 VA medical opinions finding that his low back and heart conditions as well as PTSD and an acquired psychiatric disorder were not related to his military service.

Low Back Condition The Board found appellant had a current diagnosis of degenerative disc disease of his low back but that his service treatment records contained no record of treatment for a back injury in service.

The Board found the August 2017 VA examiner's opinion more probative of etiology than other evidence because the VA examiner based the opinion on the evidence of record and provided a rationale for its conclusion.

Appellant argues that the Board erred in relying on the August 2017 VA examiner's opinion because that opinion is based on an inaccurate medical history,lacks an adequate rationale,and 13 Nieves-Rodriguez ,22 Vet.

Hypertension The Board found appellant has a current disability of hypertension that was diagnosed in 2009.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownAries v. PeakeBest v. PrincipiDyment v. WestHarris v. DerwinskiHenderson v. WestHilkert v. WestHyder v. DerwinskiKay v. PrincipiKent v. PrincipiKutscherousky v. WestLendon v. NicholsonMiller v. WilkieOwens v. BrownPicchione v. McRodriguez v. PeakeSee Acevedo v. ShinsekiSee Gilbert v. DerwinskiSee Hickson v. WestSee Kern v. BrownSee Madden v. GoberSee Pederson v. McShinseki v. SandersStefl v. NicholsonTucker 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 →