Waters v. Shinseki — conclusory lay nexus assertions are not enough to require a VA examination

The veteran sought service connection for hypertension, diabetes, glaucoma, and a psychiatric disorder, asserting that the conditions were secondary to schizophrenia. VA denied the claims without obtaining medical examinations or nexus opinions.

The veteran argued that his lay statements alone were sufficient to trigger VA’s duty to obtain examinations under the low-threshold standard described in McLendon v. Nicholson.

The Federal Circuit disagreed. While acknowledging that McLendon established a relatively low threshold, the court explained that Congress did not intend for conclusory generalized lay assertions automatically to require medical examinations in every service-connection claim. The court held that some evidentiary basis suggesting an association between the disability and service must exist beyond a bare conclusory statement.

The court emphasized that requiring examinations whenever a veteran merely alleges causation would effectively mandate examinations in virtually every claim, contrary to the statutory framework.

Waters became an important limiting case on McLendon and is frequently cited when evaluating whether evidence sufficiently triggers VA’s duty to obtain a medical opinion.

• Conclusory generalized lay assertions alone do not automatically trigger VA’s duty to obtain an examination.
• Some evidence suggesting a potential association with service is required under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d).
• McLendon’s low threshold still requires more than purely speculative assertions.
• VA’s duty to assist is broad but not unlimited.

Waters clarified that although the threshold for obtaining VA examinations is low, unsupported conclusory causation statements alone are insufficient to require medical development.

Waters is one of the leading Federal Circuit cases defining the outer boundaries of McLendon’s low-threshold examination standard.

• Overstating Waters to improperly deny examinations despite supporting evidence.
• Ignoring corroborating lay or medical evidence beyond generalized assertions.
• Misapplying McLendon’s low-threshold standard.
• Failing to explain why evidence does not suggest a possible association.

A veteran simply states, without additional supporting evidence, that hypertension “must be related” to service decades earlier. Under Waters, VA may not be required to provide a medical examination based solely on that conclusory assertion.

Use Waters when:
• Evaluating whether evidence is sufficient to trigger a VA examination.
• Distinguishing conclusory assertions from competent supporting evidence.
• Addressing duty-to-assist disputes involving McLendon.
• Arguing that corroborating evidence exists beyond generalized lay statements.

38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d), McLendon v. Nicholson