Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/04/15/va-cant-order-exam-to-obtain-evidence-against-veteran-mariano-vprincipi-no-01-467/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:56:16+00:00

Document:
Before KRAMER, Chief Judge, and IVERS and STEINBERG, Judges.
the Veterans Benefits Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 330, 401, 116 Stat.
in Roberson v. Principi, 17 Vet.App. 135 (2003) (per curiam order).
The appellant served on active duty from March 1943 to February 1946.
not appeal that RO decision.
the appellant, on January 12, 1984, underwent a VA medical examination. R.
appellant filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) as to that RO decision (R.
disorders” and to determine the appellant’s left-shoulder functional loss.
abduction 0-130°, external rotation 0-60°, and internal rotation 0-60°.
reflects an impression of minimal degenerative arthritis, left shoulder.
his left-shoulder forward flexion was measured as 0-90°. R. at 237-38.
directed to return the report to the examiner. R. at 259-63.
due primarily . . . to degenerative [osteoarthritis].” R. at 276, 282.
file on “2/4/99.” R. at 272 (handwritten notation), 283 (same).
but not [evidence of an injury] to MG IV” (R. at 276; see R. at 294).
Preliminary Finding 3). R. at 21.
flexion was to 120 degrees and active abduction was to 110 degrees].
primarily due to degenerative arthritis.
not relate [arthritis] to the [GSW].” R. at 21.
November 2000 Board decision to this Court.
criteria for the minor, or nondominant, arm (see 38 C.F.R. 4.69 (2002)).
2002) for assessing disability ratings for the musculoskeletal system.
38 C.F.R. 4.55, 4.56 (1996).
it, that the appellant here has not been harmed.” Id.; see 38 U.S.C.
that would be affected by the examiner’s review of the claims file.
assumption that the December 1998 ROM objective measurements are valid.
the examination. See 38 C.F.R. 4.1 (2002) (inter alia, “[i]t is . . .
that each disability be viewed in relation to its history”).
that MG IV is not involved, the Board failed to address the following.
more than the 20 years required under 38 U.S.C. 110 and 38 C.F.R. 3.
injury was to MG IV), 84-88 (same), 204-05 (same).
examined the appellant and recorded his findings in December 1998. See R.
adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision.
disability is a factual determination. See Fleshman v. Brown, 9 Vet.App.
Lovelace v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 73, 74 (1990). Pursuant to 38 U.S.C.
finding if the finding is clearly erroneous.
section 5107(b) of this title.
standard. 38 U.S.C. 7261(b)(1); see 38 U.S.C. 7261(a)(4).
service-connected GSW but was silent as to arthritis. See R. at 313-14.
to any relationship between the GSW and arthritis. See R. at 141- 43.
deterioration since the November 1996 examination. See R. at 194, 206.
between the appellant’s GSW and arthritis. See R. at 276.
erroneous under section 7261(a)(4) and will set it aside. See 38 U.S.C.
clearly erroneous under section 7261(a)(4) and will reverse it. See 38 U.
not clearly erroneous and will not set it aside or reverse it. See 38 U.S.
C. 7261(a)(4), (b)(1); Roberson, supra.
before the Secretary and the Board”); see also Homan v. Principi, 17 Vet.
Rules of Practice and Procedure).
did not unambiguously attribute the appellant’s LOM to any condition.
38 U.S.C. 7261(a)(4), (b)(1); Roberson, supra.
5201 is measuring abduction only is invalid for at least three reasons.
abduction and flexion as shoulder-arm-motion measurements. See 38 C.F.R.
38 C.F.R. 4.71a, DC 5207 (“Forearm, limitation of extension of”).
2003) (directing Secretary to “straighten out . . . complicated . . .
issuances as well as ‘promote judicial efficiency'” (quoting Maggitt v.
statutes apply equally to construing regulations).
VA must afford the appellant a medical examination as stated in part II.D.
372-73 (1999) (per curiam order). See Kay v. Principi, 16 Vet.App.
of claims remanded by Board or Court).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.