Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/11/17/negative-evidence-lay-evidence-rejection-post-hoc-rationalization-references/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:49:37+00:00

Document:
This single judge decision is presented because it has a reference to a negative evidence reference, a reference to what VA must prove to reject lay evidence, and the Secretary’s practice of presenting a rationalization for the Board’s action based not upon what the Board based its decision on but a “rationalization of the evidence in lieu of an adequate statement of reasons or bases by the Board”.
derived from negative evidence does not constitute substantive evidence).
A lay person is “fully competent to testify to any pain he may have suffered, and his testimony can be rejected only if found to be mistaken or otherwise deemed not credible.” Id. at 84 (citations omitted). When evaluating lay evidence, the Board, in its role as factfinder, must “determin[e] whether lay evidence is credible in and of itself, i.e., because of possible bias, conflicting statements, etc.” Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “The Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence.” Id. at 1336-37.
See McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83 (noting that credible evidence of continuity of symptomatology could rise to the “low threshold” level of indicating a nexus between a current disability and service).
. Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144, 156 (1991) (“‘[L]itigating positions’ are not entitled to deference when they are merely appellate counsel’s ‘post hoc rationalizations’ for agency action, advanced for the first time in the reviewing court.”).
The Board’s analysis fails to account for the overwhelming unavailability of medical treatment records in the record, suggesting that the Board is relying on the absence of corroborating medical records to find the appellant not credible. See Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1337 (although the Board may weigh the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence against the lay evidence of record, it cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence).
In addition, although the Board refers to records subsequent to the 1984 injury, the Court cannot discern from its review of the Board’s decision or the parties’ briefs what records the Board is referencing.
hearing loss. Record (R.) at 1-20.
appellant raises no allegation of error as to the asbestosis claim.
the matter to have been abandoned on appeal. See Ford v. Gober, 10 Vet.App.
(holding claims not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned); Bucklinger v.
complained of low back pain. R.
complaints of low back pain. R. at 26.
basic training when he fell from a wall and landed on his back. R. at 171.
treatment for a lower back condition in 1974, 1976, and 1978 or 1980. R.
records also are no longer available. R. at 5.
appellant’s surgery are not available.
back pain. R. at 341-43.
surgery in 1985. R. at 341.
such determination. R. at 563.
appellant reported to his doctors that he felt his hearing had worsened. R.
November 2006. R. at 555.
On January23, 2008, the Board issued the decision on appeal. R. at 1-20.
appellant’s bilateral hearing loss. Id. at 16-18. This appeal followed.
improperly rejected his lay evidence as not credible because of the lack of corroborating service records. Br.
at 5. The Secretary argues that the Board appropriately found the appellant’s lay testimony not credible. Secretary’s Br. at 9-12.
Id. at 83 (emphasis added).
that a current disability ‘may be associated’ with military service include . . .
2005); Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 542, 548 (1992).
original injury and the continuity of his symptomatology” not credible. R. at 8.
initially sustained a low back injury in 1955, during his active service.
230, 226, 228. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir.
contemporaneous medical evidence against the lay evidence of record, it cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence). In addition, although the Board refers to records subsequent to the 1984 injury, the Court cannot discern from its review of the Board’s decision or the parties’ briefs what records the Board is referencing. This failure is particularly glaring given the Board’s heightened duty in this case to discuss the evidence of record and supply well-reasoned bases for its decision. See Washington and Cuevas, both supra.
rationalization of the evidence in lieu of an adequate statement of reasons or bases by the Board. Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 499 U.S. 144, 156 (1991) (“‘[L]itigating positions’ are not entitled to deference when they are merely appellate counsel’s ‘post hoc rationalizations’ for agency action, advanced for the first time in the reviewing court.”).
or bases for its decision.
appellant be provided a medical nexus examination. See McLendon, 20 Vet.
App. at 83 (noting that credible evidence of continuity of symptomatology could rise to the “low threshold” level of indicating a nexus between a current disability and service).
2008, to rely on the results of a June 2005 audiological examination. Id.
controlled speech discrimination test and a puretone audiometry test).
of the condition, the VA must provide a new examination.”).
(“Vet[eran] feels his hearing has decreased since his last evaluation.”).
schedule. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.85.
supra; see also Tucker v.
properly assess the appellant’s current level of disability. See 38 C.F.R.
Placzewski, Caffrey and Green, all supra.
and argument in assessing entitlement to benefit sought); Kutscherousky v.
(1991). The Board must proceed expeditiously, in accordance with 38 U.S.C.
Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 v.

 v.