10-35 674
10-35 674
| Board of Vet. App. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Veteran served active duty March 1963–October 1964 and seeks service connection for a back disability claimed as scoliosis.
- Administrative appeals from a November 2008 RO decision; hearing held May 2013; Board remanded in December 2013 and June 2016 for additional development.
- VA examiners provided addendum opinions in September 2016 and March 2017 concluding the scoliosis was a congenital/developmental defect not caused or aggravated by service.
- Board found those opinions conclusory and inadequately reasoned because they lacked supporting data and a connection between conclusions and evidence.
- Board also noted the VA examiners failed to address a January 2014 private physician opinion that heavy pack marching could have aggravated the scoliosis.
- Case was remanded for a new/addendum opinion with full rationale addressing whether the scoliosis is a congenital defect and whether any in-service injury or aggravation occurred, review of the opinion, readjudication, and issuance of a SSOC if denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether scoliosis is congenital/defect vs. disease capable of change | Veteran argues condition may be service-related or aggravated by service (including private doc opinion re: pack marching) | VA examiners concluded it is congenital/developmental defect not caused/aggravated by service | Remanded for an adequate, well-rationalized medical opinion explaining why scoliosis is a congenital defect or not, and addressing private physician opinion |
| Adequacy of VA medical opinions | Veteran (and Board) contends prior opinions lacked sufficient rationale and failed to address relevant evidence | VA provided opinions but without detailed rationale or linkage to record | Remanded because opinions were conclusory and did not comply with Stefl standard |
| Duty to obtain adequate examination | Veteran requests examination addressing causal/aggravation issues and private evidence | VA procured examinations but did not return adequate ones | Remanded; Board directed additional development and review per Barr/Daves principles |
| Procedural relief and next steps | Veteran seeks final decision on service connection | VA/Board requires more development before merits decision | Remand ordered; not a final decision—case returned to AOJ for further development and readjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007) (medical opinions must provide conclusions supported by reasoned explanation linking data to conclusions)
- Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (VA must provide an adequate examination once it undertakes one)
- Daves v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 46 (2007) (Board must return inadequate examinations when clarification is essential)
- Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 121 (1991) (standard for adequacy of VA development and examinations)
- Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1 (2001) (emphasizing Board's duty to obtain necessary clarification of medical evidence)