The Board denied service connection for my client’s back, bilateral knee, and bilateral ankle conditions after giving substantial weight to VA medical opinions. Those opinions relied on an absence or scarcity of evidence. The record also contained statements from former service members describing relevant problems during service.
Listening and locating the overlooked history
I listened to my client and reviewed the examination reports alongside the lay evidence. Two former service members had described limitations affecting physical duties and training, including back, knee, and ankle problems. Those accounts were relevant to the history the examiners evaluated.
The question was not whether a buddy statement alone resolved every medical issue. It was whether the Board adequately considered what those statements meant for opinions that relied on a limited account of the symptoms during service.
That required a document-by-document comparison. I examined the statements, the examiners’ explanations, and the Board’s reasons for finding the opinions persuasive.
Developing the argument in a legal memo
I prepared a legal memo identifying the Board’s failure to address whether the lay statements undermined the adequacy of the medical opinions. The motion relied on the reasons-or-bases requirement and McCray v. Wilkie’s discussion of whether an opinion rests on sufficient facts or data.
The legal argument connected the evidence to the reasoning. Rather than broadly asserting that the examinations were unfair, I identified the histories that needed to be considered and the Board finding that needed a better explanation.
This approach also respected the different roles of witnesses, medical examiners, and adjudicators. The witnesses described observations. The medical opinions addressed the claimed connection to service. The Board was responsible for explaining whether those opinions were adequate in light of the relevant evidence.
A remand for further adjudication
I won a CAVC remand of the back, knee, and ankle service-connection matters. The joint motion required an adequate Board explanation concerning the medical opinions in light of the overlooked statements.
The remand did not establish the medical connection to service or automatically award benefits. It required the decision-making process to account for evidence that could bear directly on the reliability of the opinions supporting the denial.
The appellate lesson
When an examiner relies on missing documentation, a careful appeal review asks whether other evidence supplies relevant history. Listening to the client and tracing that history through the file can expose a problem that is not apparent from the Board decision alone.
Discuss your Board appeal
I represent veterans and their families at the CAVC. Learn about my appellate representation or request a free Board decision review.
For more about this issue, read our related appeal guide. The ordinary Court filing deadline is 120 days after notice of the Board decision is issued. Contacting a law firm does not extend that deadline.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. A remand requires further proceedings and does not itself award benefits.
