Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/21/medical-treatise-timberlake-v-gober/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:41:42+00:00

Document:
This decision is a MEMORANDUM DECISION but the citation on medical treaties is of note here not the decision.
the outcome is not reasonably debatable. See Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.
jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 7252(a) and 7266.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will affirm the decision.
electrical panel and was knocked unconscious. R. at 84.
interphalangeal joints, which was attributed to psoriasis. R. at 98.
conditions alleged to have been caused by the 1952 electrical accident. R.
on electrical shock injuries and one article on psoriasis. R. at 245-63.
On January 16, 2003, the Board issued the decision here on appeal.
evidence relating his current condition to the in-service accident. Id.
the notice requirements pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 5103(a). Appellant’s Br.
claim for service connection for his psoriasis. Appellant’s Br. 13-15.
The Secretary argues that the Court should affirm the Board’s decision.
Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 103, 110 (2005) (citing Quartuccio v.
Mayfield, supra (quoting 38 C.F.R. 3.159(b)(1)); see also Pelegrini v.
evidence affected the essential fairness of the adjudication.
Mayfield, 19 Vet.App. at 121.
him of the evidence necessary to support his claim. Mayfield, 19 Vet.App.
hearing before Gordon Shufelt, Chairman of the Board. R. at 202-36.
problems that you have today. The nature of the problem is medical.
person has made that determination, that there is a connection.
nexus evidence linking his current conditions to the in-service accident.
effectively in the processing of his . . . claim.” Mayfield, 19 Vet.App.
the duty to assist. R. at 4. Section 5103A(d) of title 38 of the U.S.
veteran’s claim for disability compensation. See Wells v. Principi, 326 F.
quoting 38 U.S.C. 5103A(d)(2) and 38 C.F.R. 3.159(c)(4)(i)).
establish facts in support of an appellant’s claim. See Previous DocumentTimberlakeNext Document v.
suggest that psoriasis might be caused by an electrical shock or burn.
electrical shock or burn might effect a person’s immune system.
trigger the Secretary’s duty to assist. See Wells, 326 F.3d at 1384.
Therefore, the Board’s conclusion was not erroneous.
electrical injury. See Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 175 (1991).
its own opinion, but rather that no such evidence exists in the record.
obligation of the Board to deny the claim. 38 U.S.C. 5107(a).
Accordingly, the Court will affirm the Board decision.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.