Robert E. Case appealed Board denials of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and chronic prostatitis. The Court recounted his service treatment history, post-service diagnoses, and the procedural history of repeated denials and attempts to reopen. For the prostatitis claim, the Court held that Dr. Armstrong’s 1989 letter was new and material evidence because, if credited, it suggested the original chronic prostatitis diagnosis may have been incorrect and that earlier in-service symptoms or diagnoses may have existed. The Court therefore concluded the Board should have reopened the claim under Manio and evaluated all the evidence. The Court also held that VA failed its duty to assist by not attempting to obtain private and VA records the veteran specifically identified, and it found the Board’s reasons or bases inadequate because it did not address key inconsistencies, including the timing of terminal leave and the separation examination. By contrast, the Court affirmed the denial of service connection for the acquired psychiatric disorder, finding no reversible legal or factual error and concluding the Board satisfied reasons-or-bases and benefit-of-the-doubt requirements on that issue.

A claim must be reopened when newly submitted evidence is relevant and probative and creates a reasonable possibility of changing the outcome; once a claim is well grounded, VA must assist by obtaining specifically identified records, and the Board must address material inconsistencies with adequate reasons or bases.

When new medical evidence directly undermines the basis of an earlier denial, the Board must consider reopening rather than simply repeating the prior denial. Veterans should also identify missing treatment records early, because this decision reinforces that VA has an affirmative duty to try to obtain them.

Case is an early precedential Veterans Court decision tying together reopening, duty to assist, and reasons-or-bases review in a concrete service-connection dispute. It is especially helpful when challenging a Board refusal to reopen based on a medical opinion or when arguing that the record was inadequately developed.

Failing to reopen a claim despite new medical evidence that could change the outcome, and failing to obtain records the claimant specifically identified.

A veteran submits a doctor’s letter stating that a prior post-service diagnosis likely mischaracterized an in-service condition, and the veteran also identifies private treatment records the RO never requested. Under this case, the Board should reopen the claim, develop the missing records, and explain any reliance on contrary service records.

Use this case to argue that favorable retrospective medical opinions can be material even if they do not prove the claim outright, and to press for remand when VA ignores identified records or the Board fails to reconcile important chronological inconsistencies.

Colvin v. Derwinski, Manio v. Derwinski, Littke v. Derwinski, Gilbert v. Derwinski, Murphy v. Derwinski, Moore v. Derwinski, Godwin v. Derwinski