The Board treated several of my client’s musculoskeletal claims principally as secondary-service-connection matters and denied them. My review focused on whether the Board had adequately addressed direct service connection and a related duty-to-assist question. A separate hypertension issue also affected other claims in the appeal.
Listening and reading the claim as submitted
I listened to my client and examined the application, the accompanying medical evidence, the service records, and the Board decision. Although a supporting medical report discussed a secondary relationship, the application itself did not expressly limit the claims to that theory.
The Board stated that the veteran had not contended, and the medical evidence did not support, a direct relationship to service. I examined whether that conclusion adequately accounted for the submission and whether it addressed VA’s obligation to obtain an opinion concerning direct service connection.
For hypertension, the Board described the service records as silent. The record included a blood-pressure entry that the motion identified as requiring consideration. The argument did not treat a single reading as a conclusive diagnosis or as automatically meeting VA’s rating definition.
Preparing the legal memo
I drafted a legal memo addressing the need to read the claim sympathetically, the unresolved direct-service-connection theory, and the examination question under McLendon v. Nicholson. The reasoning distinguished the absence of an existing nexus opinion from the separate question of whether VA should have obtained one.
The memo also addressed the overlooked blood-pressure evidence and the relationship between the hypertension claim and other claimed conditions. The motion treated the stroke, diabetes, and peripheral-arterial-disease matters as intertwined with the hypertension issue because its resolution could affect them.
The CAVC remand
I won a partial remand covering the identified left-knee, lumbar-spine, sciatic-pain, hypertension, and related claims. The proposed corrective action required adequate consideration of direct service connection, the duty-to-assist question, and the relevant service evidence.
Other denials were not pursued and were not part of the remand victory. The Court result also did not establish that hypertension began in service or that the secondary relationships had been proven.
A medical report does not necessarily define the whole claim
This case illustrates why I read the claimant’s submission as well as the supporting opinion. One document may discuss a particular theory without the claimant having abandoned all others. Combining that review with client communication and a focused legal memo allowed me to challenge an analysis that had left important questions unanswered.
Discuss your Board appeal
I represent veterans and their families at the CAVC. Learn about my appellate representation or request a free Board decision review.
For more about this issue, read our related appeal guide. The ordinary Court filing deadline is 120 days after notice of the Board decision is issued. Contacting a law firm does not extend that deadline.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. A remand requires further proceedings and does not itself award benefits.
