BVA Case 19-4559: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · July 30,2020 · MEREDITH, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded / Affirmed
Decision Date
July 30,2020
Judge
MEREDITH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackCervicalHipEyeArthritisRadiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopen

Why It Was Decided This Way

Shanahan ,through counsel appeals a March 19,2019,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board) decision finding that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to disability compensation for degenerative joint and disk disease of the lumbosacral spine,and denying entitlement to disability compensation for pulmonary fibrosis and peripheral neuropathy,claimed as uncommon toxic nervous system disorder.

After the RO found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the previously denied back condition claim and denied the claims for pulmonary disease and a nervous system disorder,R.

VA obtained a medical opinion regarding the appellant's back condition in February 2017;the examiner opined that the condition was not related to service.

On March 19,2019,the Board found that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to disability compensation for degenerative joint and disk disease of the lumbosacral spine and denied entitlement to disability compensation for pulmonary fibrosis 2 and peripheral neuropathy,claimed as uncommon toxic nervous system disorder 1 .

ANALYSIS The appellant argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for finding that new and material evidence was not submitted to reopen the back condition claim.

He contends,with respect to his pulmonary fibrosis claim,that VA's duty to provide a VA examination was triggered by the internet article he submitted in May 2014 indicating that there may be a relationship between service at Camp Lejeune and pulmonary fibrosis,and that the Board erred when it found that the onset of pulmonary symptoms 12 years after separation from military service weighed against his claim.

Regarding his peripheral neuropathy claim,he asserts that,although the Board found that there was no current disability,his medical records reflect complaints of nerve pain � symptoms of a potential disability � and therefore a VA examination is necessary to confirm a diagnosable disease or confirm the etiology of his documented nerve pain complaints.

New and Material Evidence For claims to reopen decided prior to February 19,2019, see 38 C.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownBarnett v. BrownBest v. PrincipiCoker v. PeakeDuenas v. PrincipiFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHampton v. GoberIn Waters v. ShinsekiKutscherousky v. WestLendon v. NicholsonLocklear v. NicholsonMarciniak v. BrownSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Coker v. NicholsonSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Prillman v. PrincipiSee Quirin v. ShinsekiShade v. ShinsekiShinseki v. SandersSmith v. WestTucker v. WestWoehlaert v. Nicholson

Denial Type

No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam|No Current Disability

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 →