Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2010/01/16/veterans-competent-to-testify-about-persistent-or-recurrent-symptoms-jandea-v-nicholson-492-f-3d-1372-1377/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:35:13+00:00

Document:
We like the citation to Jandreau in this decision.
The appellant is competent to testify that he has experienced “persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability.” McLendon, supra; Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 ( Fed. Cir. 2007).
decision, and remanded certain matters. Knight v. Peake, No. 07-1681, 2008 WL 5095956 (Vet. App. Nov. 21, 2008).
that the Court had affirmed the Board’s denial of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a chest injury. He contends that the Court did not address whether VA had failed to meet its duty to assist with respect to his chest claim. On November 2, 2009, the Secretary filed a response in opposition. The Court grants the appellant’s motion for reconsideration, withdraws its November 21, 2008, decision, and issues this decision in its place.
right knee disability, and hypertension and will remand those matters for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
board at a swimming pool.
a chest injury in February 2003. R. at 361-63, 368. The VA regional office (RO) denied Mr. Knight’s claim for service connection for a chest injury in June 2004. R. at 500.
hypertension. R. at 415. The RO denied a claim for service connection for hypertension in December 2005. R. at 678.
a December 2002 rating decision, the RO denied the claim for service connection for a bilateral knee disability. R. at 355-59.
a right knee disability, and hypertension. R. at 1-12.
decided those issues differently in the first instance. See id.
finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Caluza, supra; Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 39-40 (1994).
was not afforded a medical examination. App. Br. at 8-9.
persistent or recurrent symptoms of the disability may be associated with the veteran’s service or with another service-connected disability; but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334, 1355-57 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Wells v. Principi, 326 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 79, 81 (2006); 38 C.F.R.
has testified that he has experienced chest pain since the documented chest injury occurred in service, and the postservice medical evidence reflected recurrent chest pain. R. at 62, 186, 347, 407, 409, 483, 538, 659. The appellant is competent to testify that he has experienced “persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability.” McLendon, supra; Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 ( Fed. Cir. 2007).
diagnose a veteran’s medical condition. See Jandreau, supra; Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 303, 307 (2007) (stating that “[l]ay testimony is competent . . . to establish the presence of observable symptomatology and ‘may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection'” (quoting Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 465, 469 (1994))); Washington v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 191, 195 (2007) (holding that, “[a]s a layperson, an appellant is competent to provide information regarding visible, or otherwise observable, symptoms of disability”). Recently, the Federal Circuit provided further guidance concerning Jandreau. In Davidson, the Federal Circuit reemphasized the utility and appropriate consideration of lay evidence, even in the absence of competent medical evidence addressing medical etiology or medical diagnosis. See Davidson, 518 F.3d at 1316 ( rejecting the view that “competent medical evidence is required . . . [when] the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis.” (citing Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1376-77)); see also Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 (cited in Robinson v. Shinseki, 312 Fed. App’x 336, 339, 2009 WL 524737, at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2009) (nonprecedential) (remanding for the Board to determine whether a low back disability is the type of injury for which lay evidence is competent evidence)).
statement of reasons or bases on the issue whether the duty to assist requires VA to provide a medical examination.
The Secretary concedes that the portion of the Board’s decision regarding the appellant’s right knee and hypertension claims contains errors. Secretary’s (Sec.) Br. at 6.
Because the Secretary has conceded Board errors regarding those claims, and because, upon review, the Court agrees that errors were made, the only dispute is whether remand or reversal is the appropriate remedy.
v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369, 374 (1998).
satisfied its duty to assist should be reversed. App. Br. at 10. However, a review of the Board’s decision shows that remand is the appropriate remedy because the Board has provided an inadequate statement of the reasons or bases for finding that VA was not required to provide a medical opinion or examination with respect to the appellant’s right knee and hypertension claims. In disability compensation claims, the Secretary must provide a VA medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies; and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran’s service or with another service-connected disability; but(4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1), (d)(1); 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A); McLendon, 20 Vet.App. at 81.
right knee injury or hypertension, or complaints relative to such, during service.” R. at 5.
However, the appellant testified that his “right knee sprained a little bit” while he was in the military. R. at 427. The Board dismissed this testimony, finding that the appellant “is not competent to offer an opinion as to questions of medical diagnosis or causation.” R. at 8. That may be true under certain circumstances, however, the appellant is competent to testify that he sustained a knee injury in service. See Jandreau, supra. Therefore, the Board should have considered this evidence when determining whether a medical examination was warranted. Similarly, the Board erred in not considering records showing that the appellant’s blood pressure was elevated during his service. R. at 40, 46, 67, 86.
diagnosed on those occasions, and blood pressure readings were otherwise shown to be normal.” R. at 10.
disability may be associated with the claimant’s service).
permissible view” is a finding that the appellant is entitled to service connection for a right knee disability and hypertension. See Gutierrez, 19 Vet.App. at 10; Johnson, 9 Vet.App. at 10.
which the Board must consider when readjudicating his claims. See Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 (2002); Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet.App. 369, 372-73 (1999) (per curiam order). The Board and the RO must provide expeditious treatment of this matter on remand. See 38 U.S.C.§§ 5109B, 7112.
the record on appeal, the appellant’s motion for reconsideration is granted, the Court’s November 21, 2008, decision is WITHDRAWN and this decision is issued in its stead. The Board’s June 7, 2007, decision denying entitlement to service connection for residuals of a chest injury, for a right knee disability, and hypertension is VACATED, and the matters are REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5103
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 § 5103
 § 7261
 v. 
 v.