Cartright v. Derwinski — Lay testimony must be weighed; Board must give adequate reasons or bases

The veteran sought to reopen and establish service connection for asthma. In support of the claim, he submitted lay testimony from himself and another witness describing respiratory symptoms and continuity of asthma after service, along with some medical records. The Board denied the claim, stating in substance that the veteran’s assertion of continuous treatment was insufficient because the condition had not been clinically documented. The Court rejected that approach, explaining that VA regulations do not require service connection to be proven solely through medical records. The Court emphasized that interested-party status does not make a witness incompetent; instead, lay evidence must be weighed for credibility and probative value. The Court further held that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases because it did not explain why the testimony was not credible or why the evidence was not at least in relative equipoise under the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. The decision was reversed and remanded for the Board to properly evaluate the evidence and explain its findings.

Lay testimony may be competent and probative evidence on the question of service connection, and the Board must assess its credibility and explain why it is rejected rather than dismissing it for lack of medical documentation alone.

Advocates can rely on competent lay evidence to support service connection, and Board decisions must explain any rejection of that evidence with adequate reasons or bases.

Cartright is a foundational case for the principle that lay evidence cannot be categorically discounted simply because it is not supported by contemporaneous medical records. It also pairs that evidentiary rule with the Board’s duty to provide reasons or bases and to address benefit of the doubt, making it a useful citation in appeals challenging summary rejection of testimony.

Rejecting lay evidence solely because the record lacks medical corroboration.

A veteran testifies that a skin condition began in service and has continued ever since, but the Board denies the claim because treatment records are sparse for many years after separation. Cartright supports arguing that the Board must weigh the testimony and explain why it is not credible, rather than dismissing it for lack of documentation.

Use Cartright when the Board discounts competent lay evidence, ignores continuity statements, or fails to explain why the evidence does not at least reach equipoise under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

Gilbert v. Derwinski, Hatlestad v. Derwinski