For Veterans Who've Had It With The VA

For Veterans Who've Had It With The VA

Ad example
Facebook Pagelike Widget
Home > Single Judge Application; Nehmer class member; 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 (2019); veterans are not medical experts, they are generally not expected to provide a precise medical diagnosis when filing a claim for benefits. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 1, 5 (2009). A veteran may identify a condition in a claim simply “by referring to a body part or system that is disabled or by describing symptoms of the disability.” DeLisio, 25 Vet.App. at 53 (internal quotation marks omitted);

Single Judge Application; Nehmer class member; 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 (2019); veterans are not medical experts, they are generally not expected to provide a precise medical diagnosis when filing a claim for benefits. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 1, 5 (2009). A veteran may identify a condition in a claim simply “by referring to a body part or system that is disabled or by describing symptoms of the disability.” DeLisio, 25 Vet.App. at 53 (internal quotation marks omitted);

Link to original post

Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
NO. 19-2864
CLAUDIA WATSON, APPELLANT,
V.
ROBERT L. WILKIE,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before PIETSCH, Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
PIETSCH, Judge: Claudia Watson appeals through counsel an April 9, 2019, Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that denied her retroactive benefits for her late husband’s
coronary artery disease, claimed as a result of herbicide exposure. 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 as the issue is of “relative simplicity” and “the outcome is
not reasonably debatable.” Frankel v. Derwinski, 1Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990). For the reasons
that follow, the Court will vacate the Board’s April 9, 2019, decision and remand the matter for
readjudication consistent with this decision.
I. FACTS
Roger Watson served on active duty in the U.S. Army from September 1963 to September
1992, including service in Vietnam from September 1965 to September 1966. Record (R.) at 301,
320.
In September 1993, Mr. Watson filed a claim for VA benefits for several problems,
including “heart Jan 76,” “Agent Orange Mar 1968,” “hearing loss (flying and gunfire) Jan 1976,
ulcer stomach June 1997, hernia-upper stomach Jun 1991, gum disease Feb 1988, gastric tear Feb
2
1983, eyes Jan 1990,” and “cyst Sep 89.” R. at 317-23. He also listed “[h]eart irregularity Jan 1976”
and “[s]inus [b]radycardia [f]light [p]hyiscal” under conditions for which he had received
treatment while in service. R. at 321.
At a January 1994 VA examination, the examiner noted

Read the full thread below

Single Judge Application; Nehmer class member; 38 C.F.R. § 3.816 (2019); veterans are not medical experts, they are generally not expected to provide a precise medical diagnosis when filing a claim for benefits. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet.App. 1, 5 (2009). A veteran may identify a condition in a claim simply "by referring to a body part or system that is disabled or by describing symptoms of the disability." DeLisio, 25 Vet.App. at 53 (internal quotation marks omitted);

Designated for electronic publication onlyUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMSNO. 19-2864CLAUDIA WATSON, APPELLANT,V.ROBERT L. WILKIE,SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.Before PIETSCH, Judge.MEMORANDUM DECISIONNote: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),this action may not be cited as precedent.PIETSCH, Judge: Claudia Watson appeals through counsel an April 9, 2019, Board ofVeterans' Appeals (Board) decision that denied...