The VA will certainly fight this. They fight everything. But, there is no way that a conclusive determination of the origination of the HCV can be determined. And since the doctor is an expert speculative statements are taken with substantially more credibility than those made by lay persons or family members. The only thing you have to go on is the veterans word and sworn testimony that he doesn't engage in high risk behavior, and a doctor saying as saying as much certainly lends weight to the veteran. The benefit of the doubt is supposed to be given to the veteran so without contrary evidence to contradict what the veteran has said a person of sound and excellent judgement (and give that the BVA must, by law, given the veteran the benefit of the doubt) then eventually an award in favor of the veteran should be reached.
The speculative statements are by a physician that can only make speculative statements in regards to the areas that he made the statements. He made a strong statement at the end; which, may be strong enough to win the claim. And, lay evidence regarding the veteran's behavior could be critical regarding supporting the doctors statement. Unless, there exists records which contradict these --jail, numerous tattoos, drug rehab, etc. the doctor's statement is still fairly strong given the reality of the timing of the claim and everything else.
Now, I have done the no no of writing this post in response solely to anothers without reading what has been posted since. Please forgive me for this. I am trying to make the argument that while "unsupported and speculative" certain professions are given leeway in this, and also, because of the nature of HCV in the difficulty of proving to an entity the exact moment of transmission even when the individual who's contracted knows when he contracted it.
Getting a doctor to say this is the exact moment of transmission is impossible. Getting a doctor to say this is possible and this is highly likely has occurred.