BVA Case 23-3526: Depression

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · September 25,2024 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
September 25,2024
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

DepressionAnxietyBackKneeHearing_LossTinnitusHipHeadacheHeartFibromyalgia

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionIncreased RatingHearing Loss

Why It Was Decided This Way

at 32,398-405,and in a June 2020 decision,the Board denied a disability rating higher than 10% for tinnitus,R.

June 2023 Board Decision In the June 2023 decision on appeal,the Board denied a disability rating higher than 10% for tinnitus under Diagnostic Code (DC)6260,finding that the appellant was receiving the maximum schedular rating available under the DC.

The Board acknowledged that the veteran had reported balance problems but the Board found that private medical evidence showed his balance problems were central and unrelated to tinnitus.

The Board denied service connectionfor mild diverticulosis,a single polyp,and melanosis, acknowledging that the veteran had current diagnoses as shown in a November 2017 colonoscopy report,but findingthat the veteran's disabilities did not begin duringservice and were not otherwise related to service.

The Board noted that there was no mention of diverticulosis,polyps,or melanosis in the veteran's service records,and no polyps were noted in a 1994 colonoscopy report.

The Board explained that the RO was not obligated to obtain a nexus opinion on whether the veteran's current disabilities were related to service because there was no credible evidence prior to the rating decision on appeal indicating that the [v]eteran's diverticulosis,single polyp,or melanosis of the colon,may be associated with service.

The Board found that if the veteran 2 As the Secretary notes in his brief,VA provided another hearing loss and tinnitus examination in December 2022,but the Board found that the record closed after the March 2021 rating decision and explained how the veteran could obtain review of evidencesubmitted after that time.

The Board found the veteran not competent to provide a nexus opinion about the conditions because they were medically complex and he lacked medical training,and no medical opinion suggested that his disabilities were related to his active service.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownAnderson v. ShinsekiBailey v. WilkieCaluza v. BrownDelisio v. ShinsekiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHilkert v. WestHoward v. GoberIn Thun v. PeakeKing v. ShulkinLendon v. NicholsonLong v. McLong v. WilkieLoving v. NicholsonMoore v. ShinsekiMorgan v. WilkieNewhouse v. NicholsonRoberson v. PrincipiRobinson v. PeakeRobinson v. ShinsekiSee Bradley v. PeakeSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Doucette v. ShulkinSee Pederson v. McSee Tucker v. WestSee Yancy v. McShinseki v. SandersSzemraj v. PrincipiTadlock v. Mc

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 →