holding that a VA examination is not inadequate merely because the medical examiner is unable to reach a conclusion without resorting to speculation, provided that the examiner explains the reasons why an opinion would require speculation
How later courts described this case
- holding that a VA examination is not inadequate merely because the medical examiner is unable to reach a conclusion without resorting to speculation, provided that the examiner explains the reasons why an opinion would require speculation
- differentiating between legal and medical standards of proof, but declining to address that issue further except to “note that in the veterans benefits system the benefit of the doubt as to any issue material to resolution of the claim goes to the veteran if the evidence is in equipoise and the burden of nonpersuasion is with VA” (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)
- noting that VA's duty to assist "does not extend to requiring a VA physician to render an opinion beyond what may reasonably be concluded from the procurable medical evidence," and "notwithstanding the duty to assist, it remains the claimant's responsibility to submit evidence to support his claim."
- holding that an examiner's report that he or she cannot provide an opinion without resorting to speculation is inadequate unless the examiner provides a rationale for that statement
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LANCE, Judge,
concurring:
Although I concur in the results reached by the opinion, I write separately to clarify the point that if the medical evidence in the record indicates that a disability has only two potential causes and at least one is related to service, then the inability of the medical examiner to provide a reason why one is more likely the cause of the claimant’s disability would place the evidence in equipoise, and the benefit of the doubt rule would apply. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55-56 (1990). That is why it is vital that a physician be clear as to precisely what conclusion cannot be reached without resorting to speculation and why the Court reaches the outcome it does in this case.