BVA Case 21-7928: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · March 31,2023 · MEREDITH, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
March 31,2023
Judge
MEREDITH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdDepressionPsychiatricBackHipAnkleEyeArthritisHypertension

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionReopenPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

In a May 2014 decision,the RO declined to reopen the claim, finding that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence.

The Board issued the decision on appeal in October 2021, concluding that,because the preponderance of the evidence weighed against finding that the appellant's alcohol abuse disorder was proximately caused or aggravated by his service-connected PTSD, secondary service connection for injuries resulting from the 1987 MVA due to an alcohol abuse disorder was not warranted.

Accordingly,the Board found that the appellant was barred as a matter of law from establishing entitlement to benefits for the left ankle disability.

Parties'Arguments The appellant argues first that the Board erred by mischaracterizing the May 2005 VA examiner's opinion,and he contends that the examination report is inadequate.

More specifically,he asserts that the Board stated that the May 2005 examiner determined that his alcohol use was less likely than not related to his PTSD,when, in fact,the examiner had noted that the record was 'replete' with evidence that his alcohol use was related to PTSD.

Further,the appellant avers that the examiner impermissibly made a credibility determination when she concluded that his 'retrospective self-report' of the history of the relationship between his alcohol abuse and PTSD and his symptoms at the time of the 1987 MVA was 'not considered sufficient or reliable for the purposes of deriving a decision regarding medical cause.

And, he challenges the psychologist's conclusion � that his self-report of his PTSD symptoms generally and on the night of the accident were unreliable � as an impermissible credibility finding.

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.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonBest v. PrincipiDavidson v. ShinsekiEuzebio v. McFletcher v. DerwinskiForshey v. PrincipiForshey v. WestGilbert v. DerwinskiHampton v. GoberIn Allen v. PrincipiJones v. ShinsekiKutscherousky v. WestLayno v. BrownMiller v. WilkieMonzingo v. ShinsekiOverton v. WilkieReonal v. BrownRusso v. BrownSee Allen v. BrownSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Deloach v. ShinsekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Quirin v. ShinsekiSee Simmons v. WilkieSee Tucker v. WestSharp v. Shulkin

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →