Caring. Effective. Efficient.

Client Win: 15-1473, Vineyard v. McDonald (Service Connection of a Shoulder Injury)

Client Win: 15-1473, Vineyard v. McDonald (Service Connection of a Shoulder Injury)

This case involves 3 errors made by the BVA Veterans Law Judge in denying service connection of a shoulder injury. 

First, the Board of Veterans Appeals is required to address certain evidence favorable to a veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1).

The BVA denied service connection of a shoulder injury by finding that the veteran “has not described or identified any lay testimony as to left shoulder symptoms in service or since service.” The BVA judge did not notice the 1978 separation examination and report of medical history, which states in the section for “physician’s summary and elaboration of all pertinent data”: “Partial dislocation, left shoulder, 1977, result of playing base football.”

Second, the BVA must ensure a veteran is afforded an adequate medical examination report concerning his claim to service connect a shoulder injury. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(1). The BVA instead relied on a VA medical opinion for the conclusion that the veteran's shoulder condition is less likely than not caused by or a result of a remote dislocation that occurred in service because the examiner could not find any evidence of a dislocation of the shoulder in the service treatment records. Not only did the examiner fail to consider the 1978 separation examination noted above, it also failed to discuss  a 1975 report of an x-ray taken of the veteran's left shoulder during service.

Third, the Board is required to substantially comply with a prior remand of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  Stegall v. West 11 Vet.App. 268 (1998). A prior CAVC remand had ordered the BVA to get another medical exam for the veteran's shoulder. Because the BVA did not get the required exam, it  failed to follow the Court's order. 

Based on these 3 errors surrounding the veteran's claim for service connection of a shoulder injury, the CAVC vacated and remanded the BVA decision.  

Does this case sound like your VA Rating Decision or BVA Decision? If so, click here to have  Attig | Steel take a look at your case.

Link to the BVA Decision on CAVC Website.

Link to the Joint Motion to Remand the CAVC Website.

Case Details

OGC Attorney: Laura R. Braden

Veteran Representation at CAVC: Chris Attig (link to bio)

Board of Veterans Appeals Veterans Law Judge: Matthew D. Tenner

Regional Office: Waco, Texas, VA Regional Office

Vets’ Rep at BVA: Disabled American Veterans (DAV)

Date of BVA Decision: March 18, 2015

Date of CAVC Judgment on Remand: November 12, 2015

Recent Cases

(April 18, 2018) The law firm of Hill and Ponton approached Attig | Steel after the BVA judge denied their veteran a higher 70 percent PTSD rating. They had put a lot of work and energy into helping a veteran, and the BVA decision seemed to gloss ove… Read More
(April 6, 2018) The veteran in this case served in the Navy in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, including deployment to Kuwait. Upon his return stateside, after attempts to reintegrate to civilian life, he began to have family and other problems.… Read More
(February 14, 2018) Attorney Chris Attig has been working with this veteran’s survivor for half a decade to get her DIC and survivor’s accrued benefits properly awarded.  The veteran was a 3 decade military veteran, who fought not only i… Read More

See More Appellate Results

VA Form 21 Blog

Nov
26
Today’s video starts off with an overview of a recent precedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the case of Moody v. Wilkie, Cause No. 16-1707. Click here to read the CAVC’s panel decision in Moody v. Wi… Read More
Nov
15
What is the Deep Issue in the Case? 38 U.S.C. §7107(b) (2012) requires “[t]he Board shall decide any appeal only after affording the appellant an opportunity for a hearing.”  On remand from the Veterans Court, the veteran asked for a new BVA he… Read More

Read the VA Form 21 Blog