BVA Case 23-0038: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · June 28,2024 · JAQUITH, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
June 28,2024
Judge
JAQUITH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdDepressionAnxietyBackCervicalShoulderHipTbiSkinHeart

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService ConnectionReopenPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

In response to a claim received on March 15,2018, 4 a VA regional office (RO) denied service connection for both diabetes and anxiety based on a lack of new and material evidence,as well as a TBI, bulging disc cervical, pinched nerve cervical, and PTSD.

In the September 8,2022,decision on appeal,the Board denied service connection for diabetes,a cervical spine disorder,and a TBI.

Regarding diabetes,the Board noted that the veteran was first diagnosed with [diabetes]without complications in August 2005 and that his STRs were silent for any complaints, treatment,or diagnosis related to [diabetes].

The Board also dismissed the veteran's testimony regarding service connection for diabetes secondary to PTSD and pes planus because [n]o medical evidence was offered as to the relationship between the two and [n]either the [v]eteran nor his representative [is]competent to provide a nexus opinion in this case.

The Board concluded that a VA exam for diabetes was not warranted because [t]he only evidence of a possible connection between his [diabetes] and service or service-connected disabilities are the [v]eteran's conclusory statements that the condition is related to service.

The Board found the veteran's assertions that this disability was related to his military service, to include a truck accident, boxing,and wearing [a]heavy helmet in service, were not credible, as these statements were contradicted by the other probative evidence of record.

Thus,the Board found that a medical examination would serve no useful purpose,since the requirement of an in-service disease or injury to establish a service connection claim cannot be met upon additional examination.

Finally,the Board denied service connection for a TBI because the element of a current diagnosis is not met.

Authorities Cited

Bardwell v. ShinsekiBuchanan v. NicholsonCray v. WilkieFletcher v. DerwinskiHilkert v. WestLayno v. BrownLendon v. NicholsonNorman v. McRoper v. NicholsonSacks v. WestSee Allen v. BrownSee Caluza v. BrownSee Gilbert v. DerwinskiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Locklear v. NicholsonSee Mahl v. PrincipiSee Shedden v. PrincipiShinseki v. SandersTucker v. WestWaters v. Shinseki

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →