Colantonio v. Shinseki — Lay evidence may satisfy the low threshold for a VA medical examination under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2)(B)

The veteran sought service-connected compensation for a back disability and argued that VA should have provided a medical examination under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2). The Veterans Court had affirmed the denial of service connection, reasoning that his lay testimony could not supply the necessary medical nexus and that the examination error was harmless. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, explaining that it had recently interpreted the statute in Waters v. Shinseki to mean that subparagraph (B) imposes a low evidentiary threshold and does not always require medically competent evidence to indicate that a disability may be associated with service. Because the Veterans Court may have applied a rule requiring medical nexus evidence in every case, the Federal Circuit remanded for reconsideration of the harmless-error analysis under the correct interpretation.

For purposes of 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2)(B), the evidence indicating that a disability may be associated with service does not always have to be medically competent; lay evidence can be sufficient in some cases to trigger VA’s duty to obtain an examination or opinion.

VA and the Board cannot impose a categorical medical-evidence requirement at the examination-trigger stage when the statute only requires evidence that the disability may be associated with service.

Colantonio reinforces that the duty-to-assist exam threshold is intentionally low and distinct from the merits nexus standard. It is useful when VA rejects examination requests by treating lay evidence as categorically insufficient.

Inadequate VA Examination

A veteran reports an in-service injury and persistent symptoms since service, but VA denies an examination because there is no medical opinion linking the current disability to service. Colantonio supports arguing that the lay evidence may still be enough to require an examination.

Cite this case to challenge Board or VA findings that no examination is required solely because the claimant has not yet produced medical nexus evidence. Pair it with Waters to emphasize the low evidentiary threshold under section 5103A(d)(2)(B).

Waters v. Shinseki