Opinion ID: 4523182
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Veterans Court’s Decision

Text: On appeal to the Veterans Court, Green argued that the Board’s reliance on his “lack of complaint” as substantive negative evidence was erroneous. Green v. Wilkie, No. 17-4845, 2019 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 486, at  (Vet. App. Mar. 28, 2019). Green argued that “the majority of these records involved treatment for things other than skin-related issues,” and that he therefore had “no occasion or motivation to discuss his [dermatophytosis] condition or medications at those times.” Id. 2 The Board considered Green’s dermatophytosis rating under the pre-2002 version of Diagnostic Code 7813, which provided more favorable criteria to Green than the revised criteria. J.A. 15–16 (“Although an award based on the revised criteria is improper prior to the date that criteria became effective, there is no prohibition against assigning a rating under the older criteria for the entire period on appeal.”). The Board also considered Green’s dermatophytosis rating under the post-2002 version of Diagnostic Code 7813 and concluded that a higher disability rating is not warranted, but that line of analysis is not at issue here. J.A. 18–19. Case: 19-2047 Document: 44 Page: 7 Filed: 04/07/2020 GREEN v. WILKIE 7 In support of his argument, Green cited to Buczynski v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 221 (2011), where the Veterans Court held that the Board erred by “treating the absence of evidence as negative evidence that Mr. Buczynski’s skin condition was not exceptionally repugnant.” 24 Vet. App. at 224. Green argued that, like Buczynski, the Board erred by using the absence of complaints as substantive negative evidence that Green did not suffer from constant itching. Green, 2019 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 486, at –3. The Veterans Court rejected Green’s argument. It explained that, in Buczynski, the Board’s reliance on an absence of evidence was erroneous because there was no reason why Buczynski’s doctors would have been expected to comment on the “repugnance” of the veteran’s condition. Id. at –3 (citing Buczynski, 24 Vet. App. at 223–24). It was not a case “where silence in the records tends to disprove the fact.” Id. at  (citing Buczynski, 24 Vet. App. at 224). The Veterans Court reasoned that Green’s silence “does tend to disprove the fact that he had constant pain, itching, and the need for constant medication,” however. Green, 2019 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 486, at . According to the court, Green’s medical records documented numerous occasions where such complaints would have been appropriate and recorded, and that Green had examinations in 2015 and 2017 which were specifically dedicated to evaluating his skin condition. Id. As a result, the Veterans Court concluded that the Board did not clearly err by considering Green’s lack of complaints in his medical records as substantive negative evidence because “these were situations where Mr. Green would have been expected to discuss his condition if he was experiencing the symptoms alleged.” Id. The Veterans Court further noted that the Board also “used actual evidence—several examination reports showing normal skin—as substantive negative evidence to deny a higher rating.” Id. at . Although other conditions may have precipitated certain VA treatment visits, each visit Case: 19-2047 Document: 44 Page: 8 Filed: 04/07/2020 8 GREEN v. WILKIE also included skin evaluations, which confirmed that Green “had no present rash or other skin conditions.” Id. at 4. Because “the evidence predominantly showed that Mr. Green did not exhibit symptoms of a skin condition during the relevant time period,” the Veterans Court concluded that the Board’s decision was adequate for purposes of review and affirmed. Id. at –5 (“What’s left of his argument is, in substance, a disagreement with how the Board weighed his statements against the medical evidence. As it is the Board’s distinct duty to weigh and assess the evidence of record, the Court declines to engage in such review.”). Green timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction to review issues of statutory and regulatory interpretation pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292.