12-25 611
12-25 611
| Board of Vet. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Veteran (Army, Nov 1991–Jun 1996) appealed RO decisions concerning gynecological conditions and fibroid tumors; prior Board actions reopened and remanded aspects of the claim.
- Board previously granted service connection for fibroid tumors with an effective date of February 9, 2010 (June 2016 rating decision); Veteran filed a timely NOD in August 2016.
- Veteran seeks service connection for other gynecological disorders (ovarian cysts, chronic yeast infections, pelvic inflammatory disease, urinary tract/vaginal infections).
- Existing medical opinions addressed direct service connection but did not consider whether the service‑connected fibroid tumors (or their treatment/surgery) caused or aggravated the other gynecological conditions.
- Procedural deficiency: AOJ had not issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) on the effective date appeal after the Veteran’s NOD, necessitating remand for issuance of an SOC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service connection for gynecological disorders other than fibroid tumors | Veteran contends other gynecological conditions are related to service and/or related to her service‑connected fibroid tumors or their treatment | VA medical opinions on record addressed only direct service connection and did not evaluate causation/aggravation by service‑connected fibroids or their treatment | Remanded for addendum medical opinion addressing whether diagnosed gynecological disorders are at least as likely as not caused or aggravated by the service‑connected fibroid tumors or their treatment/surgery |
| Effective date prior to Feb 9, 2010 for fibroid tumors | Veteran disagrees with Feb 9, 2010 effective date and filed timely NOD (Aug 2016) seeking earlier effective date | AOJ granted service connection (effective Feb 9, 2010) but did not issue an SOC after the NOD | Remanded to AOJ to issue an SOC on the effective‑date issue; Board jurisdiction requires timely substantive appeal to the SOC if filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999) (SOC requirement and appellate processing principles)
- Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398 (1995) (procedural requirements for SOC and appeals)
- Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999) (right to submit evidence after remand and scope of remand)