BVA Case 93-644: Depression

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · April 14, 1995 · KRAMER

Outcome
Affirmed / Vacated / Remanded
Decision Date
April 14, 1995
Judge
KRAMER
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackKneeHipHeadacheHeartRespiratoryGi

Why It Was Decided This Way

In February 1987, the RO confirmed its October 1986 denial of service connection for heart disease, finding that the evidence submitted was "not new and material".

In the May 24, 1993, BVA decision here on appeal, the Board found that the claims for entitlement to service connection for heart disease, CVA, and lupus were all well grounded under 38 U.

With respect to reopening the claim for service connection for heart disease, the Board found that new and material evidence had not been submitted because evidence received since the final December 1981 Board decision "did not bear directly on whether heart disease had its onset in service".

The Board found "no indication that further evidence could be obtained which would assist in the development of [the veteran's] claim".

With respect to lupus, the Board found that it had not "manifested during active service or for more than 30 years following final service discharge", and thus was neither incurred in nor aggravated by active service.

The Board noted that the veteran's contention that at one time he had records which reflected that his blood was monitored for a six-week period during active service for unknown substances did not establish that he had lupus during service.

With respect to CVA, the Board found that the "evidence does not show that any cerebral vascular disorder existed during service, that the lupus anticoagulant, the cause of the [CVA], was not clinically identified until May 1989"; and that, therefore, the CVA had not "occur[red] due to a disability manifested 9 during active service", and thus was "neither incurred in nor aggravated by active service".

With respect to the ulcer and anxiety conditions, the Board concluded that an increased rating to 40% was warranted, and granted it as a combined rating for both the ulcer and the anxiety.

Authorities Cited

Abernathy v. PrincipiAustin v. BrownBernard v. Brown Prejudice Standard In BernardBond v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCurry v. BrownDuran v. BrownFletcher v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGobber v. DerwinskiGodwin v. DerwinskiGrottveit v. BrownHatlestad v. DerwinskiJustus v. PrincipiLasovick v. BrownLittke v. DerwinskiMagana v. BrownManio v. DerwinskiMassey v. BrownOhland v. DerwinskiPeyton v. DerwinskiQuarles v. DerwinskiRogozinski v. DerwinskiSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Brannon v. DerwinskiSee Counts v. BrownSee Gabrielson v. BrownSee Isenhart v. DerwinskiSee Ivey v. DerwinskiSee Lathan v. Brown

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 17.10038 CFR 17.100(b)38 CFR 17.8038 CFR 17.80.38 CFR 20.901(a)38 CFR 3.105(a)38 CFR 3.15938 CFR 4.11438 CFR 4.13238 CFR 4.238 USC 11138 USC 111(b)38 USC 172838 USC 5107(a)38 USC 5107.38 USC 510838 USC 5108.38 USC 7104(a)38 USC 7104(b)38 USC 7104(d)

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 →