Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2010/09/24/veterans-supportive-evidence-dismissed-because-lacked-cogent-explanation-for-its-conclusion-stefl-and-nieves-rodriguez/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:37:09+00:00

Document:
timely, and the Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 38 U.S.C.
matter for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
(7) tinnitus, rated 10% from June 13, 2003. R. at 686-93.
The appellant filed his claim for entitlement to Previous HitTDIUNext Hit in January 1999. R.
also R. at 855-56, 1315-16.
speech discrimination in either ear ‘is good in . . . qui[et].'” Id. Mr.
been the situation since 1994.” Id.
schedular requirements for Previous HitTDIUNext Hit pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a) (2005). R.
perfected his appeal to the Board (R. at 70-71).
On July 1, 2008, the Board issued the decision here on appeal. R. at 3-15.
not reflective of any factor which takes the veteran outside of the norm.
38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b) was unwarranted. R. at 15.
matter be referred for extraschedular consideration pursuant to § 4.16(b).
§ 7104(d)(1); see Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995); Gilbert v.
to the claimant. Caluza v.
Board ultimately agreed that the expert’s factual premises were accurate.
although persuasive, is unavailing because the Board did not reject Mr.
statements if they lack supporting analysis. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.
has been committed”); Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 52.
failed to account for his education and employment history. Appellant’s Br.
under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16.” Kellar v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 157, 162 (1994).
of reasons or bases for its decision (citing Gleicher v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.
related to his employability. See Cathell and Gleicher, both supra.
further proceedings consistent with this decision.

References: § 4
 § 4
 § 4

§ 7104
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 § 4
 v. 
 v.