Stanton v. Brown — new and material evidence, duty to assist, and liberal reading of claims

The veteran appealed denial of service connection for a low back disorder and left shoulder impingement syndrome, as well as denial of an increased rating for a right shoulder disability. The Court affirmed the right-shoulder schedular rating and rejected extraschedular relief on the record before the Board, finding the 30 percent evaluation had a plausible basis. It also held that the veteran’s March 1981 paramedic letter was new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the low-back claim because it related to continuity of symptomatology and, when viewed with the record as a whole, could change the outcome.

On the reopened low-back claim, the Court concluded that the Board failed to account for favorable lay and medical evidence and that the May 1989 VA examination was inadequate because it did not sufficiently assess the claimed back condition. The Court further held that the Board erred by not adjudicating the CUE issue it had effectively raised in its remand, and it remanded for consideration of individual unemployability and non-service-connected pension because those issues were reasonably raised by the record. For the left shoulder claim, the Court remanded because the Board improperly rejected favorable medical nexus opinions with its own medical judgment.

Evidence is new and material when it is noncumulative and, viewed with the old record, presents a reasonable possibility of changing the outcome; VA must also liberally read the record to address reasonably raised claims and obtain adequate examinations when necessary.

Stanton is a strong reopening and development case: it supports reopening with continuity evidence, requires adequate examinations, and forces VA to address raised theories and benefits beyond the precise issue the agency chose to label.

The decision is useful when a final claim is supported by later evidence of ongoing symptoms or when the Board overlooks related theories such as secondary service connection, IU, pension, or CUE. It also provides advocacy support for arguing that a VA examination is inadequate if it does not actually resolve the disability question at issue.

Failure to reopen a final claim despite new and material evidence; inadequate VA examination; failure to address reasonably raised claims; improper rejection of favorable medical opinions; inadequate reasons or bases

A veteran reopens a denied back claim with a statement from a clinician or other witness showing ongoing back symptoms after service. If the Board ignores that evidence, relies on an exam that does not actually evaluate the back, or overlooks a reasonably raised IU or pension claim, Stanton supports remand.

Use this case to argue reopening, challenge perfunctory examinations, and compel the Board to address all claims and theories reasonably raised by the record, including secondary, IU, pension, and CUE issues.

Manio v. Derwinski, Colvin v. Derwinski, Sklar v. Brown, Cox v. Brown, Masors v. Derwinski, Gilbert v. Derwinski, Cartright v. Derwinski, Wilson v. Derwinski, Green v. Derwinski, Shoemaker v. Derwinski, Russell v. Principi, EF v. Derwinski, Mingo v. Derwinski, Pritchett v. Derwinski, Ferraro v. Derwinski