BVA Case 24-2345: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · April 30,2025 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
April 30,2025
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeAnkleHeadacheEyeRadiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

Back ConditionService Connection

Why It Was Decided This Way

Giles appeals the February 16,2024,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied entitlement to service connection for (1)a right ankle disorder;(2)a left ankle disorder;(3)a low back disorder,to include chronic lower back pain;(4)a right lower extremity disorder,to include restless leg syndrome;and (5)migraine headaches.

The Board found that a new nexus opinion for the appellant's ankle and low back disorders was required because in the previous medical opinion,the VA examiner did not address his reports that he injured his ankles and back when he jumped from the tail rotor of a helicopter.

Finally,the Board found that a remand was necessary for an adequate VA examination and medical opinion addressingthe nature and etiology of the appellant's claimed headache condition.

The examiner found a lack of substantiating evidence supporting a nexus between the right and left ankle disabilities and military service.

5 Case:24-2345 Page: 6 of 13 Filed:04/30/2025 In the February 2024 decision,the Board denied entitlement to service connection for a right ankle,left ankle,and low back disorder,finding that the evidence of record weighs against a finding that these disorders had their onset in service,or were otherwise causally related to an in- service injury,event,or disease,to include jumping off the tail rotor of a helicopter.

PARTIES'ARGUMENTS The appellant contends that the Board erred when it failed to substantially comply with the April 2023 remand orders and relied on inadequate examinations when evaluating his right lower extremity disorder and migraines.

The appellant argues that the Board erred whenit found that it complied with the April 2023 Board remand instructions and did provide him with new examinations that 'did not diagnose' him with a right lower extremity disorder or a headache condition.

Thus,the Secretary agrees that the Board's failure to ensure that the AOJ obtained in-person examinations for the right leg and headache condition was clearly erroneous.

Authorities Cited

Acevedo v. ShinsekiArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonCaluza v. BrownDavis v. WestFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHersey v. DerwinskiJones v. ShinsekiKahana v. ShinsekiMonzingo v. ShinsekiNewhouse v. NicholsonNolen v. GoberOwens v. BrownRobinson v. PeakeRobinson v. ShinsekiRodriguez v. PeakeSee Best v. PrincipiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Miller v. WestSee Newhouse v. NicholsonSee Reonal v. BrownSee Thompson v. GoberSee Tucker v. WestStefl v. NicholsonStegall v. WestTucker v. WestWashington v. Nicholson

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →