Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/16/quirin-v-shinseki-no-06-2007-defect-v-disease-failure-to-discuss-relevant-facets-of-the-record/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:00:18+00:00

Document:
– VA Gen. Couns. Prec. 82-90 (first released as 1-85 on March 5, 1985). The General Counsel opinion4 draws on medical authorities and case law from other federal jurisdictions and concludes that a defect differs from a disease in that the former is “more or less stationary in nature” while the latter is “capable of improving or deteriorating.” VA Gen. Couns. Prec. 82-90 at p. 2.
Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief for the appellee.
Before MOORMAN, LANCE, and SCHOELEN, Judges.
May 10, 2006, Board decision.
used for rating purposes.” R. at 23.
both eyes. R. at 18. No other “serious injuries, operation, or diseases” were noted. R. at 12.
appellant’s corrected vision was 20/400+ in his right eye and 20/400- in his left eye. Id.
[congenital] Leber’s optical atrophy3 noted since age 6.” R. at 27.
59. The appellant appealed that decision. R. at 64.
substantially the same reasons provided in the original June 2003 RO decision. R. at 251-52.
In April 2006, the appellant provided the Board with a statement in support of his appeal.
that VA had not rebutted that presumption by clear and unmistakable evidence. R. at 294-95.
upon VA to assist the veteran,” the Board found that the record required no further development.
noted that “congenital defects” are excluded from the list of qualified diseases or injuries.
an additional, service-connected disability is superimposed upon a congenital defect. Id.
purposes of definitively establishing whether the appellant’s condition is a defect or a disease.
how congenital conditions may properly be classified as either defects or diseases. See VA Gen.
comports with the statutory or regulatory framework governing the issue on appeal.
Couns. Prec. 82-90 (first released as 1-85 on March 5, 1985). The General Counsel opinion4 draws on medical authorities and case law from other federal jurisdictions and concludes that a defect differs from a disease in that the former is “more or less stationary in nature” while the latter is “capable of improving or deteriorating.” VA Gen. Couns. Prec. 82-90 at p. 2.
that VA considers defects to be “more or less” static and immutable. See VA. Gen. Couns. Prec.
as that is a finding of fact to be determined by the Board.
medical opinion to clarify an issue of medical complexity. See Adams, supra; see Mariano v.
Principi, 17 Vet.App. 305, 312 (2003).
provide for “expeditious treatment” of claims remanded by Board or Court).
require the Court to issue an advisory opinion. Best v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 18, 19-20 (2001).
courts of appeal have wide latitude in deciding how to write an opinion); accord Bernklau v.
as to ensure a proper decision on remand.
evidence concerning the inception, development and manifestations” of the particular condition.
38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b)(1), (2).
questions of law. Kent v. Principi, 389 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
on remand in a case in which the veteran’s service medical records were presumed destroyed in a fire).
presumption of soundness can apply”).
appellant’s condition is a defect was flawed to the extent that it failed to properly apply VA. Gen.
affects the first prong of the presumption of soundness was inadequate.
appellant’s vision did not deteriorate while in service. See Vanerson, supra.
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 57 (1990).
presumption of soundness, in accordance with this decision.
the Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 § 3
 v. 
 v.