BVA Case 24-676: Depression

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · May 30,2025 · JAQUITH, Judge

Outcome
Vacated / Remanded / Affirmed
Decision Date
May 30,2025
Judge
JAQUITH, Judge
Service Era
January 2009 to September 2011

Conditions Claimed

DepressionPsychiatricBackKneeHipAnkleTdiuEyeArthritisRadiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionEffective DateReopenTdiu

Why It Was Decided This Way

A July 2016 rating decision found that new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim for hepatitis C, but the RO denied service connection because a June 2016 VA examination 3 noted no current disability, as recent lab work showed normal basic liver function and no current residuals.

The Board noted the veteran's assertion that the 7 Ribavirin is an anti-viral oral medication that is frequently used in conjunction with interferon to mitigate the effects of hepatitis C.

In March 2020,the RO denied an earlier effective date based on CUE in the January 2012 rating decision for the service-connected left arm disability because the initial denial was based on evidence that no current disability was shown.

Finally,the representative argued that VA failed to address medical evidence of limitations in the veteran's ability to complete overhead motions,including whether a separate rating under DC 5201 12 was warranted for his left arm disability.

Regarding the effective date for the service-connected psychiatric disability,the Board found that the January 2012 rating decision did not adjudicate a claim for a psychiatric disability,R.

Based on these findings, the Board found that 38 C.

However,the Board noted that the [STR] undergirding this assertion had been recently submitted to the record in the course of the claim filed in 2016,from which the instant appeal arises.

Finally,the Board cited the veteran's CUE motion to revise the January 2012 rating decision because it failed to adjudicate service connection for a psychiatric disability,but the Board denied that motion because [i]t is an absolute prerequisite to prevail on such a motion that the decision in question have adjudicated the issue.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownBeraud v. McBerger v. BrownBond v. ShinsekiBreeden v. PrincipiCaluza v. BrownClemons v. ShinsekiCriswell v. NicholsonFletcher v. DerwinskiIn Sellers v. WilkieMedrano v. NicholsonMedrano v. ShinsekiPhee v. NicholsonRichardson v. NicholsonRoberson v. PrincipiRobinson v. PeakeRobinson v. ShinsekiSee Andrews v. McSee Brannon v. WestSee Brokowski v. ShinsekiSee Hilkert v. WestSee Mahl v. PrincipiSee Pederson v. McSee Russell v. PrincipiSee Tucker v. WestShea v. WilkieShinseki v. SandersSzemraj v. Principi

Denial Type

Credibility|Not New Material|Cue|No Current Disability

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 →