CAVC Case 21-3379: PTSD

Following the examination,VA sought an additional medical opinion,explaining that the prior examiner also noted a diagnosis of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH),a condition that is not service connected,and [g]iven the fact that urinary frequency is a common symptom of BPH,we need some clarification as to the most likely etiology of the [appellant's]reported urinary frequency.

In the decision on appeal, the Board denied entitlement to (1)benefits for a psychiatric disorder,including PTSD;(2)benefits for memory loss, including as due to an undiagnosed illness or MUCMI;(3)a disability rating greater than 10%for residuals of squamous cell carcinoma of the left vocal cord prior to July 27,2017;(4) a rating greater than 10% for kidney stones,left kidney,with ureteropelvic junction obstruction;(5)initial ratings greater than 10%for RLS of the right and left leg;and (6)an effective date prior to May 4,2008,for the award of a 50%disability rating for OSA.

Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board failed to address favorable evidence relevant to his PTSD and memory loss claims and that the Board made improper medical determinations related to his claim for benefits for a psychiatric disorder and increased ratings for residuals of squamous cell carcinoma and RLS.

He also contends that the Board erred in its determination of the proper diagnostic code to rate RLS,sought an additional opinion for his kidney condition for the purpose of attributing symptoms to a non-service-connected condition,and should have read his February 2001 letters as an informal claim for an increased disability rating for OSA.

Law Establishing that a disability is service connected for purposes of entitlement to VA disability compensation generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability, (2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service,and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.

Whether the record establishes entitlement to service connection,along with the determination of the proper disability rating and proper effective date,are findings of fact,which the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

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 6 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.