BVA Case 24-2877: Back

The appellant underwent a VA examination for artery and vein conditions in May 2023; the examiner opined that there was no pathology to warrant an upper extremity PVD diagnosis;he diagnosed lower extremity PVD and opined that the condition is not related to service.

In April 2024,the Board denied disability compensation for bilateral hearing loss,bilateral upper extremity PVD,and bilateral lower extremity PVD.

85,86 (1992), the appellant appears to assert that the Board failed to adequately consider the reports his agent submitted of studies performed on mice concerning the potential relationship between noise exposure and delayed onset of hearing loss and the potential relationship between dioxins and cardiovascular disease.

The appellant also challenges the adequacy of the VA nexus opinions obtained for his claims,asserting that the VA examiners did not review the articles that his agent submitted and that their opinions were based on incorrect facts.

3 Case:24-2877 Page: 4 of 10 Filed:05/23/2025 postservice civilian occupation even though he wore hearing protection;(2)did not consider whether the explosion he experienced during service aggravated his preexisting left ear hearing loss;and (3)did not consider that his military occupation had a high probability of hazardous noise exposure.

Regarding PVD,he additionally contends that the VA examinations are outdated because VA has added more medical conditions to the list of those presumed to be related to service due to herbicide exposure and that the examiners did not consider when he stopped smoking.

The Secretary avers that,although the Board noted that the appellant is not service connected for a heart condition and therefore cannot establish secondary service- connection for lower extremity PVD based on such a condition,pursuant to DeLisio v.

Specifically,the Secretary avers that the Board did not consider whether the November 2016 and February 2017 VA audiology reports were adequate given that [the a]ppellant,in evidence that 2 The Court notes that the appellant raises arguments concerning service connection for tinnitus.