BVA Case 22-7103: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · January 31,2024 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
January 31,2024
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeHearing_LossTinnitusSleep_ApneaHipSkinRespiratoryEyeArthritis

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionKnee ConditionHearing LossSleep Apnea

Why It Was Decided This Way

The VA treatment provider who evaluated him submitted nexus letters dated in March 2016.

According to the VA treatment provider, he wrote these nexus statements based on his limited information and the appellant's history.

In the September 2022 decision,the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder,right and left knee disorder,and lumbar spine disorder.

In this decision,the Board found that the evidence is persuasively against finding that the appellant's claimed bilateral foot disorder,right and left knee disorder and current lumbar spine disorder first manifested during service or within 1 year of separation,or that it is otherwise due to his active service.

Credibility Analysis The appellant contends that the Board erred in finding that a VA examination is not necessary to substantiate his claims for service connection for a bilateral foot condition and for the right and left knee conditions.

First,the appellant maintains that the Board failed to lay an adequate foundation for its negative credibility findings because it relied on the absence of evidence as substantive negative evidence.

258,272 (2015), the appellant maintains that [b]efore relying on the absence of evidence to impugn a veteran's credibility,the Board must 'first establish a proper foundation for drawing inferences against a claimant from an absence of documentation.

Establishing that a disability is service connected for purposes of entitlement to VA disability benefits 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

Acevedo v. ShinsekiAllday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBuchanan v. NicholsonCiting Fountain v. McColantonio v. ShinsekiColvin v. DerwinskiConway v. PrincipiDavidson v. ShinsekiDelrio v. WilkieGardin v. ShinsekiGilbert v. DerwinskiKahana v. ShinsekiLendon v. NicholsonMiller v. WilkieOwens v. BrownReonal v. BrownRodriguez v. PeakeSavage v. GoberSee Caluza v. BrownSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hampton v. GoberSee Jandreau v. NicholsonSee King v. ShinsekiSee Madden v. GoberSee Monzingo v. ShinsekiSee Swann v. BrownShedden v. PrincipiStefl v. Nicholson

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus

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 →