BVA Case 22-411: Ptsd

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

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
May 31,2023
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdDepressionPsychiatricBackCervicalKneeHearing_LossTinnitusShoulderSkin

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionHearing LossPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

Campbell , through counsel,appeals a September 26,2021,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied service connection for (1)a lumbar spine disability;(2)a cervical spine disability;and (3)post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

In the September 2018 decision,the Board denied service connection for these three disorders.

Specifically,pursuant to the JMPR,the Board determined that an additional VA examination and opinion are needed concerning the etiology of the lumbar spine and cervical spine disabilities.

In the September 2021 decision,the Board denied service connection for a lumbar spine and cervical spine disabilities, and further denied service connection for PTSD.

Lumbar and Cervical Spine Disorder The appellant contends that the Board failed to ensure that the duty to assist was satisfied when it relied on an inadequate May 2021 VA opinion regarding his lumbar and cervical spine disorders.

In addition,the appellant contends that the examiner failed to address Dr.

With regard to appellant's contention that the May 2021 VA examiner relied on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence and failed to consider his lay statements of continuity,the Secretary asserts that the appellant has not argued that he experienced continuous symptoms,and thus, the Board rendered the permissible factual finding that [a]ppellant's statement are not credible.

In the alternative,the appellant contends that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases because it did not address the adequacy of the VA examination,thus hampering review by this Court.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiAllday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeArneson v. ShinsekiBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGreen v. DerwinskiHarvey v. ShulkinHedgepeth v. WilkieKutscherousky v. WestOwens v. BrownReferencing Buchanan v. NicholsonReferencing Kahana v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeSee Best v. PrincipiSee Buchanan v. NicholsonSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Green v. DerwinskiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Reonal v. BrownSee Washington v. NicholsonStefl v. NicholsonTirpak v. DerwinskiWalker v. ShinsekiWashington v. Nicholson

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 →