BVA Case 96-1726: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · OctoberOctober 65, 1998 · STEINBERG, Judge

Outcome
Reversed / Vacated
Decision Date
OctoberOctober 65, 1998
Judge
STEINBERG, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackHipTbiSkinHeartEyeArthritisHypertension

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionHip Condition

Why It Was Decided This Way

In the BVA decision here on appeal, the Board denied his claims on the basis that his claims for hypertension and muscular atrophy were not well grounded and denied service connection for arthritis of the right hip and varicose veins (R.

To be well grounded, a service-connection claim generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury.

303(b) (1997) by (a) evidence that a condition was noted during service or during an applicable presumption period; (b) evidence showing postservice continuity of symptomatology; and (c) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the postservice symptomatology.

For purposes of determining whether a claim is well grounded, the credibility of the evidence in support of the claim is presumed.

, current disability and medical nexus) ; rather, section 1154(b) relates only to incurrence -- that is, what happened in service.

3d 50 (1997) (table) (assuming court in Collette intended to supplement Caluza 's medical-nexus analysis, rather than obviate it, and reaffirming that Caluza analysis); see also Wade v.

302, 305 (1998) ( we hold again today, that a combat veteran who has successfully established the in-service occurrence or aggravation of an injury pursuant to [section] 1154(b) and Collette , must still submit sufficient evidence of a causal nexus between that in-service event and his or her current disability[,] as required by Caluza ); Velez , 11 Vet.

Because section 1154(b) does not obviate the other two Caluza requirements, a combat veteran who uses lay testimony to show incurrence must nevertheless use medical evidence to establish a nexus to service when the issue is one of medical etiology because lay persons are not competent to offer medical opinions .

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownBlock v. BrownBucklinger v. BrownChipego v. BrownCollette v. BrownDegmetich v. BrownEpps v. GoberEspiritu v. DerwinskiFrankel v. DerwinskiGilbert v. DerwinskiGrivois v. BrownGrottveit v. BrownHare v. DerwinskiHeuer v. BrownJensen v. BrownLittke v. DerwinskiMeyer v. BrownPrenzler v. DerwinskiQuarles v. DerwinskiRhodes v. BrownRusso v. BrownSee Allday v. BrownSee Caluza v. BrownSee Christianson v. Colt IndusSee Godwin v. DerwinskiSee Goss v. BrownSee Hicks v. BrownSee Libertine v. BrownSee Masors v. DerwinskiSee Robinette v. Brown

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|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 →