Board Failed to Explain Treatment of Conflicting Evidence in PTSD Denial
Summary of the Case
The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from September 1984 to April 1992, and from January 2002 to December 2009. While stationed in Iraq in May 2008, the Veteran began counseling for feelings of depression and anxiety. He was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with disturbances in emotions and conduct, and his term of duty was shortened.
He filed a claim for service connection for an adjustment disorder, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in October 2009. He underwent a VA examination in November 2009 in which the examiner opined that his symptoms of depression were likely related to health, relationship, and unemployment problems, and not trauma.
He was granted service connection for major depressive disorder with anxiety disorder in December 2009, but the Regional Office denied service connection for PTSD. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement with the decision in which he stated that he saw soldiers die in combat, which caused his symptoms of sleeplessness, anger, and stress. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals remanded the veteran’s claim for PTSD twice, in August 2010 and October 2016.
In March 2017, the Board denied the Veteran’s claim for PTSD based on a VA examination which stated that although the veteran experienced trauma, he did not report that he experienced “recurrent, involuntary, and intrusive distressing memories of combat,” and therefore did not have PTSD. However, evidence in the Veteran’s record showed that he did relive his trauma.
CCK Appeals Service Connection for PTSD to Court and Court Remands Veteran’s Claim
CCK appealed the Veteran’s March 2017 Board denial for service connection for PTSD to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). CCK argued that the Board erred when it failed to explain how it treated evidence that the veteran did relive his trauma, and instead relied on the VA examination in its denial.
The Court agreed that the Board did not provide adequate reasons and bases for the denial, as the Board has an obligation to explain its treatment of conflicting evidence. Because the Board did not explain its treatment of the favorable evidence, the Court remanded the Veteran’s case back to the Board for readjudication.
- The Board erred when it denied the Veteran an increased rating for carpal tunnel syndrome and headaches.
- Board erred in denial of increased rating for PTSD and in finding that TDIU was not raised by record
- In denying service connection for a respiratory disorder, Board erred when it relied on an inadequate medical opinion
- Denial of unemployability benefits contained legal error, Court finds
- Increased rating for PTSD denial premised on incorrect rating criteria
- As a Veteran, How Much Will My Appeal of a Board Denial to the Court Cost?
- What Can I Do to Establish Service Connection for My Condition?
- What is the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA)?
- What is the Process in a Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) or Veterans Court Appeal?
- I Received an Unfavorable Board Decision; What Should I Do?
- CCK Court Win: Precedential Decision on VA Unemployability
- Post 9/11 PTSD Claims
- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC)
- Do You NEED That Board Hearing
- Monk v. Wilkie: Class Actions at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC)
Share this Post