BVA Case 91-1082: Psychiatric

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · March 22, 1993 · KRAMER

Outcome
Vacated
Decision Date
March 22, 1993
Judge
KRAMER
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PsychiatricBackAnkleHeadacheTdiuEyeRadiculopathyHypertension

Why It Was Decided This Way

The Board concluded that there was no evidence of MS in service or within the seven-year period for establishing service connection for MS on a presumptive basis (see 38 U.

In an April 1989 decision, the RO concluded that there was no new and material evidence to reopen the MS service-connection claim finally denied by the BVA in 1984.

In its April 19, 1991, decision here on appeal, the BVA concluded: "The evidence submitted since the prior [BVA] decision, while new and material, does not establish a new factual basis warranting a grant of service connection for multiple sclerosis.

Rather, he asserts that the Board may exercise only appellate jurisdiction to decide issues that had previously been decided by the RO, and that, because the RO had concluded that there was no new and material evidence to reopen his MS claim, the Board's inquiry on appeal should have been limited to determining whether he had submitted new and material evidence.

He contends that, once the Board determined, contrary to the RO, that new and material evidence had been presented, it was required to remand the matter to the RO with instructions to readjudicate the claim on the basis of all the evidence, both old and new.

§ 5108 (West 1991), the Secretary must reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim when "new and material evidence" is presented or secured with respect to that claim.

First, it must determine whether the evidence presented 5 or secured since the prior final disallowance of the claim is "new and material".

In determining whether evidence is new and material, "the credibility of the evidence must be presumed.

Authorities Cited

Branham v. DerwinskiColvin v. DerwinskiFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiHatlestad v. DerwinskiJustus v. PrincipiKarnas v. DerwinskiMachado v. DerwinskiMyers v. DerwinskiPaller v. PrincipiQuarles v. DerwinskiRowell v. PrincipiRussell v. PrincipiSee Archer v. PrincipiSee Douglas v. DerwinskiSee Kehoskie v. DerwinskiSee Manio v. DerwinskiSee Masors v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 19.538 CFR 19.938 CFR 20.10138 CFR 20.20038 CFR 3.103(b)38 CFR 3.103(c)38 CFR 3.103(d)38 USC 111038 USC 1112(a)38 USC 510838 USC 7104(a)38 USC 7104(b)38 USC 7104(c)38 USC 7104(d)38 USC 710538 USC 7105(a)38 USC 7105(b)38 USC 7105(c)38 USC 7105(d)38 USC 7261(a)

Denial Type

Credibility|Not New Material|Duty To Assist

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 →