BVA Case 96-1726: Back
Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · OctoberOctober 65, 1998 · STEINBERG, Judge
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
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 →