BVA Case 21-1135: Psychiatric

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · July 25,2022 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Reversed
Decision Date
July 25,2022
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricBackCervicalKneeShoulderAnkleHeadacheGiEyeArthritis

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopen

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Board noted that the August 2019 examiner considered the [v]eteran's contentions that he injured his neck while in service and that he still had symptoms.

But the Board denied service connection for a right rotator cuff disability,relying on the April 2015 examiner's opinion that the right shoulder disability was a normal age-related finding and that medical literature did not support one shoulder causing pathology in another shoulder.

The Board found that the most probative evidence did not indicate that his neck disability or cervical radiculopathy were incurred in service or related to his service-connected disabilities.

The Board found the veteran competent to report his symptoms,but not competent to opine on the nature and etiology of his medical conditions.

The Board found the VA examinations adequate because the examiners saw the Veteran in person,reviewed his file, performed all required testing,and offered opinions supported by explanations.

Calabrese argues that the Board erred in relying on an inadequate April 2019 right shoulder examination because the examiner did not opine on whether his right rotator cuff disability was aggravated by his service-connected left shoulder disability.

Calabrese argues that the Board erred in relying on an inadequate April 2019 headaches examination because the examiner's findings were internally inconsistent and the examiner noted his headache complaints but failed to explain why he did not have a headache disability.

Concerning IBS,he argues that the Board erred in relying on an inadequate April 2019 intestinal conditions examination because the examiner failed to explain why he did not have a current diagnosis of an intestinal condition.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiAllday v. BrownAmin v. ShinsekiArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownCarbino v. GoberCarbino v. WestDeloach v. ShinsekiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGutierrez v. PrincipiHenderson v. WestLendon v. NicholsonMedrano v. ShinsekiMiller v. WilkieMonzingo v. ShinsekiSee Best v. PrincipiSee Harris v. DerwinskiSee Locklear v. NicholsonSee Medrano v. NicholsonSee Pederson v. McSee Saunders v. WilkieSee Simmons v. WilkieSee Tucker v. WestShinseki v. SandersStefl v. NicholsonVan Valkenburg v. ShinsekiWalker v. Shinseki

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →