BVA Case 24-2408: Back

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

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
April 30,2025
Judge
MEREDITH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackKneeArthritis

Issues on Appeal

ReopenKnee Condition

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Board subsequently remanded the claim to obtain a medical nexus opinion, directing the examiner to address the appellant's statements that his knee disability resulted from carrying rucksacks, standing guard,or the May 1982 in-service fall.

The appellant appealed,and in October 2023,the parties entered into a joint motion for partial remand (JMPR) in which they agreed that the December 2021 medical opinion was inadequate because the examiner did not consider the appellant's lay statements that he has had continuous knee pain since service,and the parties agreed that remand was required for the Board to obtain a new medical opinion that addresses [the a]ppellant's lay statement.

Of note,the Board concluded that it was not necessary to obtain an addendum to the December 2021 VA opinion because the Board found that the appellant is an inaccurate historian, his lay statements are not credible, and his statements are entitled to little probative value.

Parties'Arguments The appellant first contends that the Board erred in concluding that,because it found not credible his reports of continuous knee problems since service,the Board did not need to obtain a new medical nexus opinion as directed by the parties in the JMPR.

As for the Board's credibility determination, the appellant maintains that the Board impermissibly rendered its own medical opinion in finding that,if he had knee injuries resulting in a chronic condition during service,knee complaints or treatment would have been documented in his service medical records.

He also contends that the Board erred in finding that statements made to treating clinicians are necessarily considered reliable.

Similarly,he suggests that it was error for the Board to find him incredible based on the same evidence that was before the Board when it previously had not impugned his credibility.

Finally,he stresses that a new medical opinion could have informed the Board's credibility finding and that a negative credibility finding did not extinguish VA's duty to assist.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownBest v. PrincipiBolds v. McDyment v. PrincipiEvans v. WestFletcher v. DerwinskiForcier v. NicholsonFountain v. McGilbert v. DerwinskiGill v. McKutscherousky v. WestMiller v. WilkieSee Donnellan v. ShinsekiSee Dyment v. WestSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Gill v. ShinsekiSee Kahana v. ShinsekiSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Quirin v. ShinsekiSmith v. WilkieStegall v. West

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|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 →