Willie J. Garrett served on active duty from 1958 to 1963 and suffered a right zygomatic fracture in service after an automobile accident. He later sought service connection for dental malocclusion and a higher rating for residuals of that fracture. The Board denied service connection, finding the malocclusion was neither incurred in service nor caused by the service-connected fracture, and also denied an increased rating.

The Court reviewed the Board’s factual finding under the clearly erroneous standard. It emphasized that the appellant’s private oral and maxillofacial surgeon stated the retrognathic maxilla was likely caused by the fractured zygoma, and the VA examination evidence did not contradict that specialist opinion. Because the Court was left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been made, it held the Board’s denial was not plausible. The Court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded with directions to award service connection for dental malocclusion and determine the appropriate rating.

A Board factual finding is clearly erroneous when the record, viewed as a whole, leaves the Court with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, particularly where uncontradicted specialist evidence supports the opposite conclusion.

Garrett is a strong reversal case for challenging Board factfinding when favorable specialist nexus evidence is effectively unrebutted.

The decision illustrates that the Court may reverse a Board denial when the evidence overwhelmingly supports service connection and the Board’s contrary conclusion has no plausible basis. It is especially useful in cases involving competing medical evidence where the favorable opinion is specialized, specific, and unrebutted.

Improper Weighing of Medical Evidence [Evidentiary Errors]

A veteran submits a specialist opinion stating that a jaw deformity is likely caused by an in-service facial fracture, but the Board denies service connection without identifying meaningful contrary medical evidence. Garrett supports arguing that the denial is clearly erroneous.

Use Garrett to argue for reversal when the Board rejects strong, unrebutted medical nexus evidence and the record as a whole does not provide a plausible basis for the denial.

Gilbert v. Derwinski, Willis v. Derwinski, Meister v. Derwinski