10-22 712
10-22 712
| Board of Vet. App. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Veteran served active duty May 1953–May 1983 and appealed RO denials from a November 2007 decision and related actions; he testified at a Board hearing in October 2015.
- AMC granted service connection and 20% rating for left upper extremity radiculopathy effective Feb 25, 2016; Veteran did not appeal that grant.
- Board previously remanded for development; additional evidence and VA treatment records (including June–July 2017 items) were added after recertification, and new exam material exists.
- VA sought further development: outstanding VA treatment records (post-June 2017) and clarification of a private records authorization the Veteran submitted in Jan 2017 (largely illegible).
- Prior VA medical opinions for ankles and feet (Feb 2016 with addenda) were insufficient: feet opinions failed to address continuity of symptoms; ankles opinions need clarification regarding an Achilles tendonitis diagnosis recorded near the 2007 claim.
- Board found further development necessary, remanded for additional records requests, targeted addendum opinions, and readjudication; TDIU was added but deferred as inextricably intertwined with unresolved rating issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service connection – bilateral knees | Veteran contends knees are service-related and seeks reopening | RO previously found no new and material evidence to reopen | Remand for further development; no final grant/denial by Board yet |
| Service connection – ankles and feet | Veteran asserts continuous symptoms since service; claims ankles/feet disabilities are related to service (including parachute jumps, running in boots) | AMC/RO medical opinions did not find service etiologies; provided inadequate rationale on continuity and diagnosis | Remand for targeted addendum opinions addressing Achilles tendonitis diagnosis and continuity of symptoms |
| Service connection – bilateral shoulders (right and left, excluding previously granted radiculopathy) | Veteran seeks service connection for shoulder conditions | RO previously denied; Board recharacterized claims and found record needs more development | Remand for readjudication after records and medical opinions obtained |
| Increased rating for DDD at C5 and TDIU | Veteran seeks higher rating and asserts unemployability due to service-connected conditions | Determination of higher ratings and TDIU depends on outcomes of pending development and ratings | TDIU added but deferred as inextricably intertwined; remand directed for records, addendum exams, and readjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242 (Board/VA must maximize benefits)
- Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (medical opinions must provide adequate rationale and consider full history)
- Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (adequacy requirement for VA medical opinions)
- Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (remand compliance requirement)
- McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (VA must discuss relevant contemporaneous diagnoses in records)
- Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (TDIU consideration when increased rating sought)
- Roberson v. Principi, 251 F.3d 1378 (court-level guidance on TDIU and related matters)