BVA Case 24-3628: Ptsd

2 Appellant argues that the Board failed to address his arguments about the adequacy of a VA compensation and pension (C P)opinion used to deny his left testicle claim,improperly relied on its own medical judgment to deny his psychiatric disability claim,and failed to explain its 1 Claims filed before the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017,Pub.

Finally,the Board remanded service connection for bilateral hallux valgus as secondary to bilateral pes planus,a lumbar spine disability,a right knee disability,a right great toe condition,and the issue of whether appellant had submitted new and material evidence to reopen his service connection claim for a red eye condition.

The Secretary counters that the Board explained why it found the C P opinion adequate,properly considered the relevance of medical treatise evidence,and laid a good foundation for making a negative credibility finding.

The Board failed to address appellant�s explicitly raised argument about the adequacy of the January 2017 C P opinion that found his testicle removal unrelated to service.

Appellant fails to persuade the Court that Board erred in finding a new C P opinion to be unnecessary.

Finally, appellant doesn�t prove that the Board failed to lay an adequate foundation for its finding that appellant wasn�t credible to report an in - service right thumb injury.

Legal Landscape Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1)a current disability,(2) an incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service,and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability.

97,107 (2008)(holding that it is the responsibility of the Board,not the Court,to assess the credibility and weight to give evidence); Washington v.