Caring. Effective. Efficient.

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-1697, Booker v. Wilkie (C&P opinion ignores continuity of symptomatology)

Client Win: CAVC No. 20-1697, Booker v. Wilkie (C&P opinion ignores continuity of symptomatology)

This case involves a US Army veteran (1984 - 1988) appealing a denial of service connection based on the failure of the C&P opinion to address continuity of symptomatology for a lumbar spine injury to the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA).

The appeal was resolved through a joint motion to remand.

ISSUE ON APPEAL TO THE CAVC (C&P Opinion ignores continuity of symptomatology for back condition).

The VA's duty to assist requires that any C&P opinion by the VA be adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007).

A VA C&P opinion is adequate where it is based upon consideration of the veteran’s prior medical history and examinations, describes the disability in sufficient detail so the BVA's evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one, and sufficiently informs the BVA of a medical expert’s judgment on a medical question and the essential rationale for the opinion. See e.g., Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97 (2012)

RESOLUTION AT THE CAVC.

The BVA committed two errors in this case.

First, the BVA did not explain its reliance on an inadequate C&P opinion. For example, the VA C&P examiner consider an x-ray, three years before the veteran’s injury, that showed no evidence of an injury. The C&P opinion was also inadequate because  it relied on the passage of time to discount the possibility that the veteran’s in-service injuries caused his current disability, without discussing the veteran’s report that his back pain continued since service.

The second error was closely related: the VA examiner who wrote the C&P opinion failed to consider the veteran's evidence of continuity of symptomatology - evidence that his back pain has continued since service, despite a lack of treatment records. The veteran gave a plausible explanation for not seeking medical treatment or filing a claim for nearly 25 years, which the BVA veterans law judge appeared to ignore.

He told the BVA and the doctor who wrote the C&P opinion that he did not learn he could file for disability benefits until 25 years after service. And after leaving the military in 1988, he did not have medical insurance and did not know he could receive treatment from the VA until 2010. In short, the BVA failed to consider the veteran’s statements concerning the continuity of symptomatology of his back pain from service to diagnosis, or his explanations for the absence of documented medical treatment.

If you have been denied service connection for a back injury based on what you think is an inadequate C&P opinion,  and would like help appealing to the BVA or CAVC, click here to have  Attig | Curran | Steel take a look at your case.

Case Details

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

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

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge: Jennifer Hwa  (link to BVA veterans law judge bio on LinkedIn)

Attorney for the BVA: C. Ford

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Ronald C. Sykstus, Attorney (link to attorney's bio on LinkedIn)

Date of BVA Decision: November 13, 2019

Date of CAVC Joint Motion to Remand: October 16, 2020   

Link to BVA Decision

Link to CAVC Joint Motion to Remand

 

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