BVA Case 20-0205: Back

In October 2017,the Board denied the appellant's claim for an increased disability rating for headaches.

The Board found that the September 2016 VA C P knee examinations did not comply with this Court's decision in Correia v.

In March 2019, the Court found that the Board had failed to provide an adequate statement of its reasons or bases for its decision because the Board did not address whether the appellant had also appealed the issue of an earlier effective date for the increased 30%disability rating.

In the October 2019 decision here on appeal,the Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for constipation secondary to medications for his service-connected disabilities; denied increased disability ratings for his service-connected headaches,right knee instability, and left 3 knee disability;and granted an earlier effective date to May 7,2015,but not earlier,for his service- connected headaches.

Whether a medical [examination or]opinion is adequate is a finding of fact,which the 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.

As with any material issue of fact or law,the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.

The appellant argues that in denying increased disability ratings for his right knee instability and left knee disability,the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of its reasons or bases for relying on the September 2016 and March 2019 VA C P knee examinations.