BVA Case 21-8100: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · August 25,2023 · SCHOELEN

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
August 25,2023
Judge
SCHOELEN
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeAnkle

Issues on Appeal

Service Connection

Why It Was Decided This Way

The March 2017 examiner provided a negative nexus opinion regarding the appellant's claim.

In August 2018,the Board denied the appellant's claim based on both the March 2017 VA medical opinion and the Board's finding of an absence of ankle-related problems in the appellant's service treatment records (STRs).

According to the examiner,although the veteran was competent to report the history and onset of his symptoms, no nexus has been established because there are no records to support the claim and no records have been found that will confirm consultation or treatment relative to ankle condition during service.

In May 2021, the Board found the February 2021 medical opinion inadequate and remanded the case for a new VA medical opinion,explaining that despite the February 2021 examiner's acknowledgement that the [v]eteran is competent to report his history of an ankle injury and continued symptoms,.

On remand,the Board specifically instructed the examiner to,among other things,acknowledge and consider the veteran's competent reports of symptoms and history, and,if the examiner rejects them, he or she must provide an explanation for such rejection and not .

The August 2021 examiner opined that the appellant's ankle condition was less likely than not related to service for the following reasons: While veteran notes ankle injury in 1999 with subsequent use of a brace,the STRs are negative for any chronic ankle diagnosis.

As this condition was not diagnosed until 2017,over 15 years after separation from service,a nexus is not established .

In the September 2021 decision on appeal,the Board denied the appellant's claims for his ankle disabilities.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBardwell v. ShinsekiBarr v. NicholsonBuchanan v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownCantrell v. ShulkinCosman v. PrincipiDalton v. NicholsonFountain v. McGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHickson v. WestHorn v. ShinsekiJandreau v. NicholsonLayno v. BrownMiller v. WilkieMoore v. NicholsonMoore v. ShinsekiOwens v. BrownReonal v. BrownRodriguez v. PeakeSee Best v. PrincipiSee Davidson v. ShinsekiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Swann v. BrownSee Washington v. NicholsonStefl v. NicholsonThompson v. Gober

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 →