BVA Case 94-0927: Knee

As was the case in Ramey, the BVA decision here was issued prior to the Combee opinion, and the BVA failed to address the question of direct service connection.

510 (1992), this Court held that in an attempt to reopen a previously disallowed claim, the credibility of evidence is to be presumed, and that further, [o]nce the evidence is found to be new and material and the case is reopened, the presumption that it is credible and entitled to full weight no longer applies.

In the adjudication that follows the reopening, the Board having accepted provisionally for reopening purposes the credibility of the new evidence, then must determine, as a question of fact, both the weight and credibility of the new evidence in the context of all the evidence, new and old.

19, 21 (1993), this presumption of credibility was expressly extended to evidence submitted to render claims well grounded.

In determining whether a claim is well grounded where the proposed medical theory has scientific underpinnings, we similarly hold that the Board must presume the credibility of the scientific theory unless it is "inherently incredible.

In the instant case, the BVA committed error in assessing the credibility and weight of the evidence before determining whether the claim was well grounded.

With regard to scientific evidence, the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court is useful in defining the "inherently incredible" exception to the presumption of credibility.

Such a preliminary assessment is not unlike the Board's threshold analysis of whether proffered evidence relating to a scientific theory is `inherently incredible,' and therefore not entitled to the presumption of credibility, or not useful in a determination of a claim's well-groundedness.