Caring. Effective. Efficient.

Client Win: CAVC No. 20 - 2297, Backlund v. Wilkie (VA C&P Examiner ignores prior BVA order)

Client Win: CAVC No. 20 - 2297, Backlund v. Wilkie (VA C&P Examiner ignores prior BVA order)

This case involves the BVA appeal of an Army veteran (1976 to 1977) who was appealing the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition.

The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand.

ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (VA C&P Examiner ignores prior BVA order).

The duty to assist requires that the Board of Veterans Appeals ensure that any C&P exam provided by the VA is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007).

A VA medical opinion must be factually accurate, fully articulated, and have sound reasoning for its conclusion. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 395, 304 (2008). The VA C&P examiner must provide a reasoned connection of medical facts to a clear opinion. See id. And the BVA must include an adequate statement of reasons and bases explaining what probative weight it affords the VA C&P examiner's opinion and why. See 38 USC 7104(d)(1).

The Board is required to substantially comply with its own prior remand orders, and with prior remand orders  issued by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  Stegall v. West 11 Vet.App. 268 (1998). 

In this case, the BVA previously remanded the appeal to the VA regional office, with directions to perform another C&P exam. The instructions required the VA regional office to:

(1) identify all diagnosed psychiatric disorders, reconciled with conflicting evidence in the record;

(2) for any diagnosed psychiatric disorder, determine whether it is at least as likely as not related to the veteran's service

(3) obtain a detailed history of relevant symptoms

(4) if the VA C&P examiner diagnosed PTSD, he or she must identify the in-service stressor and opine as to whether the stressor is adequate to support a DSM-V diagnosis of PTSD;

(5) identify any symptoms that the veteran experienced that are related to his claimed stressor; and,

(6) consider and address three specific medical treatment statements and BVA hearing testimony in which the veteran identified his in-service stressors.

The VA C&P examiner shrugged off these instructions, choosing instead to opine only that it was possible that the veteran experienced a trauma in service, but that it was not strongly supported by records.

The VA's C&P examiner then concluded that the veteran's trauma was likely due to multiple stressors and it was not possible to determine if the symptoms are due to service without resorting to mere speculation.

RESOLUTION AT THE CAVC.

The parties agreed that the Board of Veterans Appeals erred when it failed to ensure substantial compliance with its own prior remand order, giving the regional office specific instruction as to what the VA C&P examiner should discuss.

Not only did the VA examiner not comply with the BVA's prior remand, but the BVA ignored their own remand too, failing to discuss the VA C&P examiner's failure to provide the opinion sought.

If you believe that the BVA has ignored its own remand order, or the remand order of the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, or if you believe the VA C&P examiner's opinion in your case is inadequate, please click here to have  an attorney at Attig | Cuurran | Steel take a look at your case.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Mary Jones (link to attorney's bio on LinkedIn)

Veteran Representation at CAVC: Alexandra Curran (link to bio)

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge:  Michael Lane (link to VLJ's bio on federalpay.org)

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Florida Department of Veterans Affairs

Attorney for the BVA: Jonathan Yang (link to attorney's bio on LinkedIn

Date of BVA Decision: December 5, 2019

Date of CAVC Joint Motion to Remand: November 23, 2020   

Link to BVA Decision

Link to CAVC Memorandum Decision

 

Recent Cases

This case involves an Army veteran who served on active duty in 1991 and then from 2008 to 2009 who was seeking a service-connected major depressive disorder rating in excess of 30%. The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand. ISSUE ON… Read More
This case involves a survivor’s claim for entitlement to Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). The appellant’s late-husband served in the US Air Force from 1964 – 1984, and passed away from a rare form of non-Hodgkins lymphom… Read More
This case involved a US Army veteran (1967 to 1971) who was seeking service connection for hypertension, congestive heart failure, Type II diabetes, stroke, and atrial fibrillation due to agent orange exposure in Thailand during the Vietnam war. The… Read More

See More Appellate Results

Taking Point! Blog

Mar
2
In January 2021, the loss of use of a reproductive organ for SMC purposes was the focus of a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Bria v. Wilkie.   The panel consisted of Judge Mere… Read More
Feb
26
In January 2021, the VA rating for prostate cancer was the focus of a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Bailey v. Wilkie.   The panel consisted of Chief Judge Bartley (who… Read More
Feb
26
  Bold and unapologetically honest, Pam Keith is a refreshing political voice you need to follow right now.  She smoothly articulates the most rocky and controversial topics of our time.  It is no surprise that this attorney with 25 years of expe… Read More
Feb
12
In November 2020, a panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals Veterans Claims issued a precedential opinion in Holmes v. Wilkie.   In it, the Court laid out a road map for Veterans trying to get the correct VA rating for migraines… Read More

Read the "Taking Point!" Blog