Benefit Of The Doubt Or Etiologically

[add55p]

All

While both are awarded decisions, which of the following categorized BVA decisions are more beneficial for the Veteran

.

1. Giving the Veteran the Benefit of the Doubt based on a balance of evidence (relative equipoise).

OR

2. Board finds that the current condition is Etiologically related to Service.

Add

[brokensoldier244th]

What's the difference? Both are a win

[SeattleShay]

In most cases the benefit of doubt goes to the VA no matter what..

[Buck52]

"4.3 Resolution of reasonable doubt.

It is the defined and consistently applied policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case. When after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. See § 3.102 of this chapter.

[40 FR 42535, Sept. 15, 1975]" 38 CFR 4.3

Etiological Diagnosis

is a process of determining the nature and cause of the disease or injury through evaluation of the patient history exam & lab.

So I think no. 2 would be more beneficial to the veteran as for as related to service.

jmo

............Buck

[add55p]

Buck52

The way I read what you have posted regarding the etiologically decided claim, I to think that that would be more beneficial to the Veteran.

Theoretically, I believe the word "Doubt" may cause the rater to give a lower rating when a higher rating would be warranted.

This is just my opinion..

Thank you for your response..

Add

[vern2]

Agree with Buck52, anything that can be service connected is always better than Benefit of Doubt. BOD is supposed to be decided in favor of veteran, but in reality it is the opposite. I see this many, many times while reading CAVC decisions, where BVA cases are remanded back to BVA or RO where BOD is ignored. Remember this is just my humble opinion and is to be taken at face value

[broncovet]

BOD is just one of the many "platforms" that politicians use to get Veterans, and Veteran advocates, votes. Here are some more, written into regulations and regurarly ignored:

1. "Claimant Friendly"

2. "Non-Adversarial"

3. "Ex Parte" Ex-Parte means there is no one opposing you. (one party only..unopposed) Its kind of like someone you sue, and they get the papers served but dont show up in court so you get a judgement by default. The VA is not supposed to have anyone there who opposes you getting your benefits. The theory is that they all want you to get benefits, but sometimes they can not award benefits because the law wont allow it. At BVA hearings, they make it sound like this is what happens. They "try" to treat you like you NOT like you are accused of a crime..at least they are not supposed to. They are supposed to treat you like a deserving Veteran who got his benefits denied, but that has additional evidence that they are anxious to hear so they can award your benefits and move on.

AS asknod says, its all a "dog and pony" show.

Interestingly, the "ex parte, claimaint friendly, BOD, ex parte" system goes out the window at the CAVC level. You better have an attorney at the CAVC level and he will have to prove your case. The default is the government wins.