Veteranclaims’s Blog

March 11, 2022

Single Judge Application; VA Training Letter 00-07; medical criteria for diagnosing hypertension that is outlined in VA Training Letter 00-07; Court order directing the Secretary to explain the effect of VA Training Letter 00-07, the Secretary reiterated that the training letter is binding on VA medical examiner’s that are asked to offer opinions regarding in-service manifestation of hypertension.;

Filed under: Uncategorized — veteranclaims @ 11:47 pm

Designated for electronic publication only
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
NO. 09-4306
CARLTON K. CRIDER, APPELLANT,
V.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI,
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE.
Before HAGEL, Judge.
O R D E R
Note: Pursuant to U.S. Vet. App. R. 30(a),
this action may not be cited as precedent.
On November 17, 2009, Carlton K. Crider, who is represented by counsel, filed a Notice of
Appeal from an October 30, 2009, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) that denied
entitlement to VA benefits for hypertension.
On June 30, 2011, the parties filed a joint motion for remand, agreeing that the Board
decision must be vacated and the matter remanded because the Board relied upon an inadequate VA
medical examination opinion in violation of 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2011). Specifically, the parties agree
that, in opining that Mr. Crider’s hypertension did not manifest in service, the VA medical examiner
mistakenly relied upon legal criteria in the rating schedule for hypertensive vascular disease that are
used to establish the current level of such a condition after service connection is established. Instead,
the parties agree that the opinion must be based on “medical criteria relevant to rendering a
diagnosis” of hypertension. Joint Motion at 1-2. The parties therefore agree that “remand is
necessary to allow the Board to obtain an adequate medical opinion” that is premised on the medical
criteria for diagnosing hypertension that is outlined in VA Training Letter 00-07.1 Id.
The Court will grant the parties’ joint motion for remand according to their agreement. The
Board has a duty to ensure compliance with the terms stated therein. Forcier v. Nicholson,
19 Vet.App. 414, 426 (2006). The Secretary must provide expeditious treatment of this matter
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7112.
1 In a July 5, 2011, response to a previous Court order directing the Secretary to explain the effect of VA
Training Letter 00-07, the Secretary reiterated that the training letter is binding on VA medical examiner’s that are asked to offer opinions regarding in-service manifestation of hypertension.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is
ORDERED that the joint motion for remand is granted. The October 2009 Board decision
is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further development and readjudication consistent
with the terms of the joint motion. Under Rule 41(b) of the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,
this order is the mandate of the Court. It is further
ORDERED that the Secretary include a copy of the joint motion for remand and a copy of
this order in the claims file.
DATED: July 13, 2011 BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lawrence B. Hagel
LAWRENCE B. HAGEL
Judge
Copies to:
Kristina L. Derro, Esq.
VA General Counsel (027)
2

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Powered by WordPress.com.