On October 14, 2026, I filed the appellant's brief in Hall v. Collins, No. 25-10581, challenging the Board's denial of higher initial ratings for PTSD and COPD with asthma. The brief focuses on a problem that can shape an entire disability appeal: VA knew about private treatment, but the records needed to evaluate that treatment were missing.
My argument connects that missing history to the Board's reasons for denying higher ratings. I ask the Court to vacate the challenged portions of the October 14, 2025, Board decision and require further development and new examinations. This update describes the October 14 filing and the relief requested; it does not report a Court ruling or a benefits award.
The private records VA had reason to pursue
The sequence matters. According to the brief, a VA respiratory examiner instructed the veteran to send his personal medical records to VA. On August 19, 2023, he submitted private records identifying his primary care physician, pulmonologist, and other medical providers. VA received that submission before its September 13, 2023, rating decision.
The submission included older pulmonary records and more recent laboratory testing, but it did not include pulmonary treatment records after December 2019 or clinical notes from the primary care physician. The brief argues that VA never followed up with notice, a request for authorization, or requests to the identified providers. See appellant's brief at 3-5, 12-15.
Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(1) and (e)(2), VA must make reasonable efforts to obtain relevant private records. When VA learns of relevant records before deciding a claim, it must notify the claimant and request a release. Claimants must cooperate, including authorizing disclosure when necessary. My argument is that VA left those steps undone here.
Why the missing history mattered to the ratings
For COPD with asthma, the Board relied on an examination reporting no current treatment and no physician visits for exacerbations. I argued that the missing pulmonary and primary care records could bear directly on medication use and treatment for exacerbations, matters relevant to the asthma rating criteria. The brief also identifies a gap between the older private pulmonary records and the 2023 examination. See brief at 15-16, 20-22.
For PTSD, the Board discounted a private clinician's assessment of total occupational and social impairment, finding insufficient evidence about the frequency, duration, and severity of certain symptoms. Yet the record also identified private primary care treatment for psychiatric symptoms. I argued that those clinical records could help answer the questions the Board found unresolved. See brief at 16-17, 22-24.
The brief does not assume what the missing records contain or claim that obtaining them guarantees higher ratings. It explains why their possible relevance required attention before VA treated the existing record as sufficient.
Examinations built on an incomplete treatment history
The second argument challenges the Board's reliance on the August 2023 respiratory examination and September 2023 PTSD examination. I argued that neither examiner had the identified private treatment history necessary for a fully informed evaluation.
That distinction matters. An examiner's review of the available file does not resolve whether VA should have obtained additional relevant records. The brief ties the missing history to the specific findings the Board relied on, rather than treating every absent record as automatically making an examination inadequate. See brief at 18-24.
Why the timing supports the requested remand
The August 19 submission preceded the September 2023 rating decision. My argument therefore concerns an alleged duty-to-assist error that occurred before the agency decided the claims.
38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a) requires the Board, unless it can grant the issue in full, to remand for correction of an agency duty-to-assist error predating the decision on appeal. I ask the Court to require that correction here. The brief also addresses why the Board's evidence window and the absence of this particular argument in the prior representative's briefing should not bar relief. See brief at 25-26.
The relief I requested
I asked the Court to vacate the denials of initial ratings above 70 percent for PTSD and above 30 percent for COPD with asthma, and to remand for notice, authorization requests, reasonable efforts to obtain the private records, and new examinations informed by the completed record. The hearing-loss rating is not part of the challenge pursued in this brief. See brief at 1-2, 26-27.
This appeal illustrates the work behind a CAVC brief: reconstructing the development timeline, identifying what VA knew before its decision, and explaining how missing evidence could affect the Board's reasoning.
Learn more about missing medical records and VA's duty to assist, or contact Ricks Law for a free Board decision review.
Source: Appellant's Brief, Hall v. Collins, No. 25-10581 (Vet. App. filed Oct. 14, 2026). Brief references use the brief's printed page numbers.
