CAVC

The BVA must provide an adequate statement of the reasons and bases for its decision

The Board is required to include in its decision a written statement of the reasons or bases for its findings and conclusion on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record; that statement must be adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board’s decision. Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 56-57 (1990).

To comply with this requirement, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed.Cir.1996) (table); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert, supra.

The BVA must consider all relevant evidence

The Board is required to consider all relevant evidence of record and to consider, and discuss in its decision, all “potentially applicable” provisions of law and regulation. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 593 (1991); See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a),(d)(1).

The BVA must address all issues raised by the appellant or the evidence of record

The Board is required to consider all issues raised by the claimant. Schroeder, 212 F.3d at 1271.

The Board is required to consider all issues raised by the evidence of record. Solomon v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 396, 402 (1994).

The BVA must consider lay evidence

The Board must consider lay evidence. Lay evidence is not required to be accompanied by medical evidence. The Board may consider lack of medical evidence against the probative value of lay evidence but cannot discount lay evidence due to lack of contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006).

If the BVA relies on a VA medical opinion to support its decision, the VA medical opinion must be an adequate medical opinion.

A medical opinion is considered adequate “when it is based upon consideration of the veteran’s prior medical history and examinations and also describes the disability in sufficient detail so that the Board’s “evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one.” Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 303, 311 (2007) citing Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 405, 407 (1994) (quoting Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991)).

Additionally, “It is the factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion, not the mere fact that the claims file was reviewed, that contributes probative value to a medical opinion. The Board must be able to conclude that a medical expert has applied valid medical analysis to the significant facts of the particular case in order to reach the conclusion submitted in the medical opinion.” Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet.App. 295, 304 (2008) citing Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App 120 (2007).

If BVA remands one medical condition for further adjudication, it must also remand all of the other inextricably intertwined conditions

Inextricably intertwined conditions are conditions that are so closely related that a final decision concerning one cannot be rendered until a decision of the other. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180, 183 (1991).