VA Claims: Disabled Veterans Community|Hadit.com

Single Judge Application; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2020); In general, evidence is “new” if it was not already submitted to agency adjudicators, and it is “material” if it “relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a); In Shade v. Shinseki, we explained that the “material evidence” requirement sets a “low threshold” that does “not require new and material evidence as to each previously unproven element of a claim.” 24 Vet.App. 110, 121 (2010); Instead, the Board must evaluate whether the “newly submitted evidence, combined with VA assistance and considering the other evidence of record, raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.” Id. at 117;

Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
No. 20-0496
BRADLEY J. DONAGHUE, APPELLANT,
V.
DENIS MCDONOUGH,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before FALVEY, Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
FALVEY, Judge: Air Force veteran Bradley J. Donaghue appeals through counsel a
September 24, 2019, Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision denying his request to reopen a claim
for service connection for right and left knee conditions and denying service connection for a
psychiatric disorder, a skin disorder, and a sleep disorder.1 The appeal is timely, the Court has
jurisdiction to review the Board decision, and single-judge disposition is appropriate. See
38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a), 7266(a); Frankel v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 23, 25-26 (1990).
On May 17, 2021, we issued a decision affirming part of the Board decision and setting
aside and remanding another part of the decision. Mr. Donaghue filed a timely motion for
reconsideration and, after further review, we will grant the motion for reconsideration, withdraw
our May 17, 2021, decision, and issue this decision in its stead.
We are asked to decide whether the Board erred when it found no new and material
evidence to reopen the bilateral knee condition claim; whether the Board erred by relying on
inadequate medical examinations to deny service connection for a psychiatric disorder, a sleep
disorder, and a skin disorder; and whether the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or
1 The Board also remanded claims for service connection for brain injury residuals and service connection
for muscle and joint pain due to an undiagnosed illness. Record (R.)

error: Content is protected !!