BVA Case 20-5820: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · October 29,2021 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
October 29,2021
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeAnkleArthritisRadiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopenKnee Condition

Why It Was Decided This Way

PIETSCH, Judge :The appellant appeals the May 6,2020,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied the petitions to reopen the previously denied claims of entitlement to service connection for a low back disability,left ankle disability,and right ankle disability,and granted the petitions to reopen the previously denied claims for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability and right knee disability.

In the May 2020 decision,the Board denied the petitions to reopen the previously denied claims of entitlement to service connection for a low back,left ankle and right ankle disability.

Specifically,the Board found that the unappealed December 2013 rating decision denied 3 service connection for a low back,left ankle,and right ankle disability,and new and material evidence was not received prior to expiration of the appeal period.

PARTIES'ARGUMENTS The appellant contends that [t]he Board erred in failing to provide adequate reasons and bases for its determination that new and material evidence had not been received sufficient to reopen these claims.

With regard to his petition to reopen the left and right ankle claims,the appellant maintains that the December 2013 denial was predicated on both a lack of nexus to [his]military service,and the lack of an underlying diagnosis.

According to the appellant, [b]y discounting this evidence due to a lack of nexus,the Board has held [him]to a standard beyond that set forth in regulation and defined by this Court in Shade .

With regard to the claimed low back condition, the appellant also contends that the Board erred in failing to provide adequate reasons and bases for its determination that new and material evidence had not been received sufficient to reopen this claim.

The appellant maintains that the December 2013 denial of this claim was also predicated on a lack of nexus to [a]ppellant's military service,and the lack of an underlying diagnosis.

Authorities Cited

Elkins v. WestFletcher v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiKutscherousky v. WestLendon v. NicholsonPrillaman v. PrincipiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hampton v. GoberSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Pederson v. McSee Smiddy v. WilkieShade v. ShinsekiSuaviso v. NicholsonTucker v. West

Denial Type

No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against

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 →