BVA Case 21-5701: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · January 10,2023 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
January 10,2023
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeGiTdiuArthritisErectile

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionReopenTdiuIncreased Rating

Why It Was Decided This Way

In a March 2 2013 rating decision,a VA regional office (RO) denied service connection for an endocrine system disorder and right knee disorder and found no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen a claim for a left knee disorder.

The Board explained that a January 2001 rating decision denying service connection for knee disorders had never become final,and therefore the Board did not have to consider whether new and material evidence had been submitted.

Peterson's ED was likely caused by his endocrine disorder and was not related to service.

May 2019 Board Remand In May 2019,the Board remanded the matter of service connection for an endocrine system disorder,finding that the December 2016 examiner failed to address the December 2011 VA physician's statement and the veteran's August 2014 research submission showing connections between pituitary dysfunction and head injuries,which the veteran suffered in service.

The Board found the issue of service connection for ED intertwined with the endocrine system claim because Mr.

June 2021 Board Decision In the June 2021 decision on appeal, the Board denied service connection for an endocrine system disorder,relying on the July 2020 VA examiner's opinion that the veteran's endocrine disorder resulted from a pituitary tumor,which was not related to in-service head trauma,and was less likely than not related to service.

The Board denied service connection for ED,relying on the January 2020 examiner's opinion that the veteran's ED was related to his endocrine disorder and was not at least as likely as not directly related to service.

Peterson's endocrine disorder was not service connected, the Board concluded that secondary service-connection was not warranted as a matter of law.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHoward v. GoberIn Correia v. McKutscherousky v. WestLuca v. BrownMitchell v. ShinsekiMonzingo v. ShinsekiSee Acevedo v. ShinsekiSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Gabrielson v. BrownSee Harris v. DerwinskiSee Hensley v. WestSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Simmons v. WilkieSee Tucker v. WestSharp v. ShulkinShinseki v. SandersStefl v. NicholsonStegall v. WestTadlock v. McVan Valkenburg v. Shinseki

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Not New Material|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 →