Link to original post
Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
SAMUEL WATTS, APPELLANT,
ROBERT L. WILKIE,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before MEREDITH, Judge.
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent.
MEREDITH, Judge: The appellant, Samuel Watts, through counsel appeals a
November 29, 2018, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied entitlement to
benefits for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and
depression. Record (R.) at 3-10. This appeal is timely, and the Court has jurisdiction to review
the Board’s decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a). Single-judge disposition is
appropriate. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990). For the following reasons,
the Court will vacate the Board’s decision and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent
with this decision.
The appellant served on active duty in the U.S. Army from March 1970 to January 1972,
including service in Vietnam. R. at 495. The record contains his 2011 reports of anxiety
and depression, R. at 310, as well as difficulty sleeping and nightmares “for probably forty years,”
R. at 264. He reported that, while he was stationed in Vietnam, there was “a lot of racial tension”
and he had difficulty working with other soldiers. Id. He stated that he had used cannabis daily
for the past 40 years to help him sleep. R. at 265. At a December 2011 mental health medication
review session, the examiner recorded the following under the heading “Past Psychiatric History:
. . . Psychotherapy”: “Mid 70’s or maybe 80’s he came over here
Read the full thread below
Single Judge Application; Board cannot "evade [its] statutory responsibility [to state the reasons or bases for its conclusions] merely by adopting [a medical opinion] as its own" where the medical opinion "fails to discuss all the evidence which appears to support [the] appellant's position." Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 40 (1994); Gabrielson does not require that a medical opinion discuss all the evidence favorable to a claimant, only that the Board, in relying on an opinion that does not do so, discuss any additional favorable evidence to comply with its duty to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision. Id.; see 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see also Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet.App. 143, 149 (2001) (holding that, although the Board must consider all of the evidence of record, "a discussion of all evidence is not required when . . . the Board has supported its decision with thorough reasons or bases regarding the relevant evidence");
Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNo. 19-2119SAMUEL WATTS, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before MEREDITH, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent. MEREDITH, Judge: The appellant, Samuel Watts, through counsel appeals aNovember 29, 2018, Board of Veterans' Appeals...