# Michael H. Jones v. Eric K. Shinseki

> United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims · March 25, 2010 · 23 Vet. App. 382

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502599

## Case

- **Full name:** Michael H. JONES, Appellant, v. Eric K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Appellee
- **Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
- **Decided:** March 25, 2010
- **Citations:** 23 Vet. App. 382; 2010 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 458; 2010 WL 1131917
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lance
- **Judges:** Kasold, Lance, Davis
- **Cited by:** 91 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/9502599

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- 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…
- 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
- concluding that a medical examiner may report that an issue of medical causation cannot be resolved without resorting to speculation if that conclusion is adequately explained

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9502599. Public record. Not legal advice.