BVA Case 20-5520: Anxiety

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · December 9,2021 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
December 9,2021
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

AnxietyPsychiatricBackCervicalHip

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionEffective DateIncreased Rating

Why It Was Decided This Way

King's claims for an increased initial rating for surgical scars of the abdomen and flank and an insomnia disorder,for new VA examinations;the Board noted that recent submissions by the [v]eteran and his attorney have asserted that his symptomatology .

June 2018 Board Decision and August 2019 Court Remand In a June 2018 decision,the Board denied an initial disability rating higher than 10%for an insomnia disorder and denied an initial disability rating higher than 10% for surgical scars of the abdomen and flank.

The Board denied an initial disability rating higher than 10%for surgical scars of the left abdomen and left flank,explaining that Mr.

The Board noted that rating decisions of February 2019 and August 2019 addressed entitlement to an increased rating for scars but that the Board would not address these rating decisions because they are not currently before the Board for review.

The Board found that his limitations were analogous to a moderate injury of Muscle Group XIX and warranted a separate 10%rating but no higher under DC 5319 for the entire appeal period.

King argues that in denying an initial disability rating higher than 30%for an insomnia disorder,the Board failed to discuss his reports of panic attacks,relied on inadequate examinations,and failed to explain why it did not enforce substantial compliance with its previous remand.

King asserts that the Board erred in limiting consideration of a higher initial rating for surgical scars of the left abdomen and left flank to the period before December 2018.

He also asserts that the Board erred in failing to obtain a new examination to determine the extent of his abdominal muscle disability and thereby failed to ensure substantial compliance with prior Board and Court remands.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownAmberman v. ShinsekiArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBankhead v. ShulkinBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownClaudio v. ShinsekiConnell v. NicholsonFenderson v. WestFletcher v. DerwinskiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHoward v. GoberJohnston v. BrownJones v. ShinsekiKutscherousky v. WestMonzingo v. ShinsekiPalczewski v. NicholsonSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Caffrey v. BrownSee Hilkert v. WestSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Medrano v. NicholsonSee Quirin v. ShinsekiSee Simmons v. WilkieSee Smallwood v. BrownSee Tadlock v. McSee Tucker v. WestSee Warren v. Mc

Denial Type

Credibility|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam

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 →