The appellant sought service connection for a right knee disorder, arguing both that new and material evidence reopened a previously denied direct-service-connection claim and that the disorder was secondary to a service-connected left knee disability. The Court affirmed the Board’s refusal to reopen direct service connection, holding that the post-1988 evidence, while new, was not material because it did not tend to show in-service incurrence or aggravation within the presumptive period. The Court then reversed the Board on secondary service connection. It concluded that the Board clearly erred by rejecting the treating VA physician’s repeated opinions that the right knee disorder was secondary to the left knee disability, by relying on its own interpretation of radiographic evidence, and by offering speculative reasoning unsupported by independent medical evidence. The Court also emphasized that VA adjudication may consider both medical and lay evidence, and that the record as a whole compelled secondary service connection. The case matters because it sharply limits Board factfinding when medical causation evidence is uncontradicted and reinforces that secondary service connection must be decided on competent medical grounds.

When the record contains competent, favorable medical evidence establishing that a disability is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected condition, and the Board offers no contrary independent medical evidence, the Board may not reject that evidence based on speculation or its own medical judgment.

Harder is a strong citation for challenging Board decisions that dismiss favorable nexus opinions without competent rebuttal. It is especially useful where the Board relies on its own reading of medical records or imaging to deny secondary service connection.

The decision is a foundational early Veterans Court case on secondary service connection and on the limits of Board medical factfinding. It helps advocates argue that competent favorable medical opinions cannot be set aside by conjecture, and that VA must explain any rejection with record-based medical support.

Board Medical Judgment

A veteran’s orthopedic specialist opines that an altered gait from a service-connected ankle disability caused degenerative changes in the opposite knee, but the Board denies the claim by saying the x-rays do not look different enough and offers no contrary medical opinion.

Use Harder to argue that the Board must rely on independent medical evidence when rejecting favorable causation opinions and that speculative comparisons of imaging or pathology are not a valid substitute for medical expertise.

Colvin v. Derwinski, Paller v. Principi, Murphy v. Derwinski, Guerrieri v. Brown, Smith v. Derwinski, Gleicher v. Derwinski, Hanson v. Derwinski, Caldwell v. Derwinski, Cartright v. Derwinski, Espiritu v. Derwinski, Karnas v. Derwinski, Green (Victor) v. Derwinski