BVA Case 22-7547: Back

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

Outcome
Affirmed
Decision Date
January 31,2024
Judge
MEREDITH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackCervicalHearing_LossTinnitusHipTdiuEyeHypertension

Issues on Appeal

SmcBack ConditionService ConnectionIncreased RatingHearing Loss

Why It Was Decided This Way

There must be a nexus of auditory damage to relate current hearing loss to military noise and not another etiology.

In the November 2022 decision on appeal,the Board denied disability compensation for tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss and denied a compensable rating for ureterolithiasis.

Next,the appellant maintains that the Board erred when it rejected [his] credibility, finding that he should have reported hearing loss and tinnitus in service if he was experiencing problems.

Additionally,he notes that [t]he Board's rationale for rejecting [his]credibility also completely rejects the theory of delayed onset,as proffered by the private examiner.

4 As for his ureterolithiasis disability rating,the appellant posits that the Board erred in finding that his bloody urine and flank pain had been attributed to a different medical condition, did not explain why a new medical examination was not warranted to address the source of his bloody urine and pain,and did not define what would constitute an occasional attack of colic under Diagnostic Code 7509.

The appellant acknowledges that the Board found that he 'only provides speculation that the pain .

He also recognizes that a VA examination had been scheduled and then canceled,and he suggests that the Board failed to analyze this evidence or why it did not consider remanding for a new examination.

condition,and its associated challenges ;the appellant does not contend that he has had kidney stones since 2010;and he cannot show a predecisional duty to assist error in VA failing to obtain another examination given that his wife canceled the examination that VA had scheduled.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownBerger v. BrownBond v. DerwinskiBuchanan v. NicholsonCarbino v. WestCarr v. SaulCray v. WilkieDavidson v. ShinsekiFugere v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGlover v. WestHampton v. GoberHensley v. BrownJanssen v. PrincipiKahana v. ShinsekiMedrano v. ShinsekiMorris v. McOwens v. BrownRobinson v. PeakeRobinson v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeRusso v. BrownSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Buckley v. WestSee Carbino v. GoberSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Hensley v. WestSee Hilkert v. WestSee Locklear v. NicholsonSee Medrano v. Nicholson

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Duty To Assist

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 →