BVA Case 22-3869: Back

at 2487-88, the Board member explained that the appellant was missing evidence of a nexus,R.

After the appellant's representative reiterated that the appellant had been treated continuously for 52 years,the Board member elaborated: 2 [W]e're still going to need the nexus .

After VA obtained a negative medical nexus opinion,R.

The nurse practitioner opined that all these findings were decades post[]service and unrelated to the single episode of indigestion in 1965 and acute [gastroenteritis]in 1967, and she concluded that a nexus had not been established.

On June 16,2022,the Board denied entitlement to disability compensation for acid reflux, a hiatal hernia,and a stomach condition,including diverticulitis.

Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board erred by requiring medical evidence to corroborate his lay statements of continuous symptoms since service,providing inadequate reasons or bases for finding his lay testimony incredible,and relying on inadequate medical opinions.

Regarding his lay statements,the appellant contends that the Board erred when it found him incredible solely because his testimony does not constitute medical evidence and was not corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence of record.

As for the January 2022 medical opinions,the appellant contends that they are based on an inaccurate premise because the nurse practitioner failed to consider his in-service diagnosis of gastroenteritis.