# Barney J. Stefl v. R. James Nicholson > United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · March 27, 2007 · 21 Vet. App. 120 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502502 ## Case - **Full name:** Barney J. STEFL, Appellant, v. R. James NICHOLSON, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee - **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims - **Decided:** March 27, 2007 - **Citations:** 21 Vet. App. 120; 2007 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 494; 2007 WL 900780 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Greene - **Judges:** Greene, Hagel, Lance - **Cited by:** 383 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502502 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that a medical opinion is considered “adequate where it is based upon consideration of the veteran’s prior medical history and examinations and also describes the disability, if any, in sufficient *119 detail so that the Board’s ‘evaluation of the claimed disability wi… - explaining that, to be adequate, a medical examination or opinion must "describe[] the disability . . . in sufficient detail so that the Board's 'evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one'" (quoting Ardison, 6 Vet.App. at 407 ) (internal quotation marks… - explaining that, to be adequate, a medical examination or opinion must “describe[] the disability ... in sufficient detail so that the Board’s ‘evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one’ ” (quoting Ardison, 6 Vet.App. at 407) (internal quotation marks o… - holding a medical opinion is considered adequate when it is based on consideration of the appellant's prior medical history and examinations and also describes the disability in sufficient detail so that the Board's evaluation of the disability will be a fully informed one ## Opinion text GREENE, Chief Judge, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority’s view that the Board’s reliance on the examiner’s statement to deny direct service connection was clearly erroneous. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261 (a)(4); Forcier v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 414, 421 (2006) (Board’s assessment of credibility and weight to be given to medical evidence is finding of fact reviewed under “clearly erroneous” standard); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 193 (1991). The March 2003 VA examiner stated that he had reviewed the claims file, examined Mr. Stefl, performed a fiberoptic endoscopic examination, and concluded that Mr. Stefl’s “nasal and sinus polyp disease is not related to service or exposure to Agent Orange.” R. at 337-38 (emphasis added). I believe the first part of this statement reflects the examiner’s opinion regarding direct service connection, while the second part relates to presumptive service connection. The examiner further noted that Mr. Stefl’s condition is not similar to respiratory cancers, which are presumed to be caused by herbicide agents and that his condition is usually caused by “recurring sinus infections and/or respiratory tract allergies.” R. at 338. These medical findings provided the Board with a plausible basis for relying on the May 2003 VA medical examination to determine whether there was direct service connection. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 52-53 (1990) (holding that when applying “clearly erroneous” standard, Board’s finding supported by plausible basis may not be reversed even if Court would have weighed evidence differently). Further, the majority’s attempt to dictate to the medical examiner how a medical opinion should be formulated stretches the boundaries of our review. The Court has jurisdiction to review the reasons or bases contained in decisions of the Board, not the medical analysis proffered in VA medical opinions. The Board denied direct service connection after finding that Mr. Stefl had no *126 complaints or diagnosis of nasal problems during service and because there is no medical evidence of record of a nexus between his in-service exposure to Agent Orange and his current nasal disease. R. at 10-11. Based on the Board’s factual findings and the medical conclusions of the May 2003 VA examination, I would affirm the Board’s decision to deny Mr. Stefl service connection for a nasal sinus disease on a direct basis. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502502. Public record. Not legal advice.