In this appeal, the Board denied higher ratings for the back and both knees and denied service connection for headaches. A close review showed that the decision left important evidence unanswered and included a medical conclusion that the Board was not entitled to supply on its own.
Listening and comparing the decision with the evidence
I listened to my client and examined the medical reports and treatment records underlying the denials. The headache analysis was a starting point. The Board concluded that there was no current headache disability, but a private examination recorded recurring migraine headaches. The Board had not addressed that evidence adequately.
I also examined the Board’s treatment of a private headache examiner’s diagnosis. The Board discounted the diagnosis in part by distinguishing chronic headaches from migraines through its own unsupported medical reasoning. Meanwhile, treatment records described radiating leg pain and sensory symptoms relevant to the back and knee analysis.
Drafting the legal memo
My legal memo connected each concern to a distinct issue. The overlooked headache evidence implicated the Board’s reasons-or-bases obligation. The unsupported medical conclusion implicated Colvin v. Derwinski. The reports of radiating pain raised the question of whether radiculopathy had been reasonably raised by the record.
The memo also addressed examination adequacy. The back examiner reported no radicular symptoms, while other records described potentially relevant symptoms. The Board needed to address the examinations in light of that evidence. The point was not to diagnose radiculopathy myself, but to show why the decision required a legally adequate explanation.
A partial-remand result with carefully defined limits
I secured a CAVC partial remand concerning the back rating, the identified knee-rating issues, and service connection for headaches. The joint motion specified the evidence and questions requiring further attention.
Not every issue in the lengthy Board decision was included in the remand. Other denials were not pursued, favorable findings were preserved, and matters already remanded by the Board were outside the Court’s review. A separate left-knee extension rating was also outside the challenge. Accurate descriptions of this result must respect those boundaries.
Why precision matters
A successful appeal should identify more than a troubling sentence. It should connect that sentence to the medical evidence, the governing legal rule, and a concrete remedy. Here, that approach produced a remand for further consideration of the affected claims without suggesting that the Court itself assigned higher ratings or awarded service connection.
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.
