BVA Case 19-5987: Ptsd

Norton ,through counsel appeals a May 13, 2019,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision that found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen previously denied claims for benefits for disabilities of the lumbar and cervical spine,and denied entitlement to benefits for bilateral knee,ankle,and foot disorders, as well as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).

For the following reasons,the Court will affirm that part of the Board's decision that determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen previously denied claims for benefits for disabilities of the lumbar and cervical spine and denied entitlement to benefits for bilateral knee, ankle,and foot disorders,and GERD.

The Board issued the decision on appeal in May 2019,finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the previously denied claims for benefits for cervical and lumbar spine disorders.

The Board denied those claims because the appellant had no current diagnoses of the claimed disorders and has not received diagnoses at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claims.

Finally,the Board denied entitlement to benefits for GERD,finding that the September 2017 VA medical examination was the only evidence of record regarding the etiology of GERD,aside from the appellant's lay statements,which the Board found not competent.

ANALYSIS With respect to his previously denied claims for benefits for cervical and lumbar spine disorders,the appellant argues that the Board failed to consider the medical literature and argument he submitted in his March 2019 supplemental remarks, which he asserts goes directly to the point of the lack of chronicity in symptoms from service until present day.

He next argues that the Board failed to ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist because he was not provided a VA medical examination regarding his claimed bilateral foot disability.

Further,he argues that the Board failed to acknowledge that the examiner did not render an opinion as to whether his alcohol use was caused or aggravated by his PTSD and therefore erred by not addressing whether his GERD could be related to his PTSD in that sense.