BVA Case 22-1071: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · October 31,2023 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Vacated
Decision Date
October 31,2023
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackShoulderSkinArthritis

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionIncreased Rating

Why It Was Decided This Way

October 2019 Board Remand and Development In an October 2019 remand order,the Board found that a new VA examination was required to address the severity of her service-connected left ring finger disability because the veteran testified that the disability had worsened since her last examination in December 2013.

The Board also ordered an addendum opinion concerning service connection for a right great toe and foot disorder because the VA examiner failed to consider all the veteran's right toe and foot complaints.

The Board also found that the December 2013 and April 2014 VA opinions addressing dermatitis were incomplete because the examiners did not consider whether her current skin disorder is related to her treatment in service for probable pityriasis rosea (in January 1975) and allergic dermatitis versus scabies (in August 1979).

October 2021 Board Decision In the October 2021 decision on appeal,the Board denied service connection for right thumb and right index finger disabilities.

The Board found that the veteran had a current diagnosis of tenosynovitis of the right index finger and thumb and had contended that she injured her right index finger and thumb during service and continued to experience pain in her index finger and thumb after separation from service.

The Board found that the veteran had a current diagnosis of a right great toe and foot condition,but relied on the December 2019 VA examiner's opinion that the veteran's right hallux valgus,hallux rigidus,and right toe fracture residuals were less likely incurred in or caused by in- service injuries.

The Board noted that the examiner opined that the veteran's 1978 and 1979 right great toe and right foot conditions were acute in nature,and in-service treatment for foot pain was less likely than not related to her current conditions.

The Board denied service connection for dermatitis, finding that although the veteran had a current skin condition,including contact dermatitis,it was not related to her in-service complaints and treatments for skin conditions.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonButts v. BrownCaluza v. BrownDalton v. NicholsonEuzebio v. McFletcher v. DerwinskiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiJohnston v. BrownKutscherousky v. WestLendon v. NicholsonMadden v. GoberMedrano v. ShinsekiMonzingo v. ShinsekiOwens v. BrownRodriguez v. PeakeSee Best v. PrincipiSee Gabrielson v. BrownSee Hilkert v. WestSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Kern v. BrownSee Medrano v. NicholsonSee Monzingo v. ShinsekiSee Simmons v. WilkieSee Smallwood v. BrownSee Tucker v. WestSee Wise v. Shinseki

Denial Type

Credibility|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 →