holding that medical treatise evidence proffered by the appellant in connection with his lay testimony was insufficient to satisfy requirement of medical evidence of nexus to well-ground claim
How later courts described this case
- holding that medical treatise evidence proffered by the appellant in connection with his lay testimony was insufficient to satisfy requirement of medical evidence of nexus to well-ground claim
- finding that generic medical literature, which does not apply medical principles to the facts of an individual case, does not provide competent evidence
- assuming court in Collette intended to supplement Caluza’s medical-nexus analysis, rather than obviate it, and reaffirming that Caluza analysis
- affirming that § 1154(b) does not affect “Caluza’s medical nexus analysis” for a well-grounded claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEBEKER, Chief Judge,
concurring:
The majority purports to promulgate a holding that is predicated upon an assumption (see ante at 524, “[Assuming that section 1154(b) can be applied to secondary service connection claims”) and which is therefore, in my view, simply dicta. They “hold” that Mr. Libertine’s claim is not made well grounded by the application of section 1154(b), interpreted in light of the recent Federal Circuit decision in Collette, supra. I submit that, given the facts of the instant case, section 1154(b) and consequently the Collette discussion, are not applicable. Mr. Libertine’s own statements are insufficient to well ground his claim for secondary service connection for his drug and alcohol problems. Section 1154(b) is simply irrelevant. His drug and alcohol problems were not incurred while he was engaged in combat with the enemy, and thus any attempt to reconcile section 1154(b) and Collette with this claim is unnecessary. Therefore, to the extent that the majority assumes applicability of section 1154(b) in this case, I respectfully dissociate myself.