In this appellate case, the VA had denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder, essentially based on a medical statement file that was not supported by medical reports or historical documentation. The veteran entered service in July 1966 and was discharged in August 1968. The Court noted that the only evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that the appellant's psychiatric condition existed prior to service consists of the July 1968 reports. The reports were not supported by any contemporaneous clinical evidence or recorded history in the record. A bare conclusion, even one written by a medical professional, without a factual predicate in the record does not constitute clear and unmistakable evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of soundness.
Court expands requirement for well grounded claims.
In this decision the Court further clarified the intent of well-grounded claims as it relates to chronicity and continuity. It is now held that there are three distinct bases for establishing a well-grounded claim. They are the general standard, as set forth in the Caluzza decision, and the chronicity and continuity standards as set forth in the Savage decision. The following is a brief case review of a recent decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It specifically addresses the issue of new and material evidence and the prior adverse implications of regulations that were not consistent with the intent of law.