This appeal required a close look at three different kinds of error: an incomplete service history in a tinnitus examination, unexplained treatment of lay reports supporting a private shoulder opinion, and an unanswered question about TDIU. I developed the arguments separately so that the proposed remedy matched each problem.
Listening and checking the service and medical history
I listened to my client and reviewed the record behind the Board’s tinnitus and bilateral-shoulder denials. The tinnitus opinion did not adequately address audiograms from earlier service-entry examinations. Comparing the examiner’s account with the service history revealed a material gap in the medical analysis.
For the shoulders, the Board discounted a private opinion that relied on the veteran’s account of pain and dysfunction during service. But it did not adequately address the credibility of the underlying reports. The record also included a statement connecting unemployment to medical conditions, raising a separate question about whether TDIU required consideration.
Drafting a memo that distinguished the errors
I prepared a legal memo addressing the tinnitus examination under VA’s examination and duty-to-assist obligations. For the shoulder claims, the issue was the Board’s explanation of its treatment of the lay reports and the private opinion.
For TDIU, the argument concerned whether the record reasonably raised the issue, including the principles discussed in Rice v. Shinseki. I did not present unemployment alone as proof of entitlement. The question was whether the evidence required the Board to address a benefit issue that its decision had left unresolved.
The memo tied each point to identifiable evidence. That made the requested corrective action more useful than a generalized assertion that the Board had overlooked the veteran’s history.
The partial-remand victory
I secured a CAVC partial remand concerning tinnitus and the bilateral shoulder conditions, with the joint motion also requiring consideration of whether TDIU was reasonably raised.
The Board’s favorable grants for the knees were to remain undisturbed. Other denials were not pursued, and matters the Board had already remanded were outside the Court’s review of the final adverse decisions. The victory therefore had a defined scope rather than encompassing every issue mentioned in the Board decision.
A complete record review supports a precise remedy
This case shows how service documents, medical opinions, and lay reports can produce different appellate arguments. My client communication and record review informed a legal memo that identified those distinctions and supported a remand. The result required further adjudication; it did not itself award service connection for the remanded conditions or grant TDIU.
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.
