An appeal involving several conditions calls for more than one broad argument that VA got the case wrong. I reviewed this client’s tinnitus, intestinal-condition, alcohol-use-disorder, and headache denials separately, then considered how the issues related to one another. That work revealed different defects requiring different corrective steps.
Listening to the client and testing the medical history
After listening to my client, I compared the Board’s account with the examination reports, service records, and statements about symptoms. For tinnitus, an examiner identified medications, including antibiotics, as a possible cause. The service records documented antibiotic treatment, but the opinion had not adequately addressed that history. The record also contained a report that tinnitus began during service.
The other conditions presented distinct problems. The Board’s intestinal-condition analysis did not adequately address a record documenting gastritis. The headache opinion failed to fully consider the reported onset and worsening of symptoms. The Board also denied the alcohol-use-disorder claim while remanding psychiatric claims that could affect its resolution.
Organizing the errors in a legal memo
I prepared a legal memo that separated examination adequacy from the Board’s explanation of the evidence. The tinnitus and headache issues implicated VA’s obligation to provide an adequate examination. The intestinal-condition issue required consideration of the scope of the claim and the relevant diagnosis, including the principles discussed in Clemons v. Shinseki.
For alcohol-use disorder, the question was whether the claim was inextricably intertwined with the psychiatric claims already being remanded. I did not treat that relationship as an automatic entitlement to benefits. I identified why deciding one matter while related matters remained unresolved required further explanation.
What the remand accomplished
I won a partial remand at the CAVC. The joint motion sought corrective action on the four identified service-connection issues, including medical opinions addressing the relevant history and fuller Board consideration of the evidence and related claims.
The scope was important. The hearing-loss denial was not pursued in this appeal, and the psychiatric matters already remanded by the Board were outside the Court’s review of the final denials. The result should therefore be described as a partial-remand victory on the specified issues, not a victory on every condition appearing in the Board decision.
The value of issue-by-issue review
This case illustrates why I combine client communication with a detailed record review. Different claims can fail for different reasons, even within one decision. A useful legal memo identifies the precise problem for each issue and the corrective action that problem supports.
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.
