Single Judge Application; Garner v. Tran; reasonably raised claim; for a claim to be reasonably raised, there must be “some evidence in the record which draws an association or suggests a relationship between” the veteran’s bilateral shoulder arthritis and service. Garner v. Tran, __ Vet. App. , , No. 18-5865, 2021 U.S. Vet. App. Claims LEXIS 81, at *16 (Jan. 26, 2021);

Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
No. 19-7197
DAVID MARTIN, APPELLANT,
V.
DENIS MCDONOUGH,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before TOTH, Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a), this action may not be cited as precedent.

TOTH, Judge: Veteran David Martin appeals a July 2019 Board decision that denied
service connection for a bilateral shoulder condition, a right wrist condition, and gastroesophageal
reflux disorder (GERD).* Since the parties concede that remand of the bilateral shoulder claim is
warranted, the Court remands it. And because the Board did not adequately explain why it relied
on certain VA examination reports in denying the right wrist claim, the Court also remands that
matter. However, for reasons set forth in more detail below, the Court affirms the Board’s denial
of service connection for GERD.
I. BILATERAL SHOULDER DISABILITY
The parties agree that remand of the bilateral shoulder disability claim is warranted because
the Board did not address Mr. Martin’s explicitly raised theory of service connection—that his
bilateral shoulder condition was caused or aggravated by his service-connected right ankle
disability or PTSD or by a yet non-service-connected right knee, low back, or neck disability.
Therefore, the Court remands for the Board to address these theories. The Court expresses no
*The Board also reopened and remanded claims for a low back and skin condition and remanded a serviceconnection
claim for sleep apnea and a claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. Since remands are not final
Board decisions, the Court has no jurisdiction over these claims. See Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet.App. 26, 28 n.1 (2017).
2
opinion on