BVA Case 20-4401: Ptsd

7 The Secretary concedes that the Board failed to adequately support its decision because it did not reconcile conflicting evidence about whether appellant suffered additional disability and because the Board failed to perform necessary fact-finding on whether appellant consented to surgery,whether the surgery was emergent,or whether VA health care providers exercised reasonable care.

11 On the March 19,2019,decision,appellant first contends that the Board erred in denying his service connection claim for ischemic neuropathy of the upper left extremity because it failed to discuss favorable evidence,failed to obtain a VA compensation and pension (C P)opinion, and failed to obtain outstanding VA treatment records.

13 The Court accepts the Secretary �s concession and agrees that the Board failed to address favorable evidence.

Finally,the Court finds that the Board failed to adequately discuss whether appellant was entitled to a C P exam and instructs the Board to properly address that question on remand.

Next,appellant asserts that the Board erred in denying his direct service connection claim for PTSD because it failed to address favorable evidence and failed to obtain outstanding VA treatment records.

Appellant also argues that the Board erred when it found that he did not appeal an April 2011 rating decision denying his claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder as secondary to his section 1151 claim.

Finally,appellant says that the Board erred in refusingto reopen his previouslyfinal service connection claim for a skin condition because he did not submit new and material evidence.

20 Because appellant�s claim was originally denied because of the lack of a diagnosed skin condition, and because he submitted new evidence showing a diagnosis,the Board�s decision was clearly erroneous and contrary to the sole permissible view of the evidence.