BVA Case 24-7617: Ptsd

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

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

Conditions Claimed

PtsdDepressionAnxietyBackSkinRespiratoryHypertension

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionEffective DateReopenIncreased RatingPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

At a VA skin conditions examination the same month,the examiner diagnosed tinea pedis with a 1969 date of onset but did not opine as to nexus.

However, the examiner opined that the appellant's condition was less likely than not related to service, and he provided the following rationale: As [service treatment records]are silent concerning a tinea [pedis]/athletes' foot condition,the [appellant's]claimed athletes'foot right and left condition was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) incurred in or caused by the please see veteran lay statement (annotated)during service.

Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board erred by relying on the November 2023 VA medical opinion,which he contends is inadequate,and he asserts that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its assignment of probative value to that medical opinion.

Specifically,he avers that the examiner, in rendering a negative nexus opinion, impermissibly relied upon the absence of a diagnosis or treatment in his service treatment records and did not account for the appellant's lay statements regarding the onset of his symptoms in service.

at 7, and thus,he contends that the medical examiner's rationale failed to support the examiner's medical judgment that [the appellant's]current disability [is]not related to his military service, id.

Regarding the appellant's contention that the Board relied on a lack of in-service diagnoses or treatment and did not consider his lay statements, the Secretary counters that the Board instead found that the contemporaneous medical evidence and VA examinations and medical opinion were more probative than his statements.

Law Establishing that a disability is service connected for purposes of entitlement to VA disability compensation generally requires medical or,in certain circumstances,lay evidence of (1)a current disability,(2)incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service,and (3)a nexus between the claimed in-service injury or disease and the current disability.

Additionally,under certain circumstances,and as part of its duty to assist claimants,VA must provide a medical examination.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBarr v. NicholsonBest v. PrincipiBond v. DerwinskiDavidson v. ShinsekiEuzebio v. McFletcher v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiHampton v. GoberMedrano v. ShinsekiMonzingo v. ShinsekiRusso v. BrownSee Breeden v. PrincipiSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Medrano v. NicholsonSee Pederson v. McSee Quirin v. ShinsekiSee Tucker v. WestShedden v. PrincipiStefl v. Nicholson

Denial Type

No Nexus|Not New Material|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 →