2.07 Evaluation Of Evidence

[Guest allan]

M21-1-6 Rating Board Procedure

2.07 EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE

The rating specialist has responsibility to recognize the need for evidence in relation to a claim. The members have responsibility to determine admissibility of and the weight to be afforded evidence that is presented, the need for additional evidence, and the need for physical examination. If all the evidence is favorable, the claim must be granted. (See Beaty v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 532 (1994).)

a. Probative Value. The rating specialist will determine the probative value of medical or lay testimony. Accept evidence at face value unless contradicted by other evidence or sound medical or legal principles. In the presence of questionable or conflicting evidence, further development may be needed to corroborate testimony to include, if in order, field examinations and/or social surveys to obtain transcripts of original or other appropriate records. Rating decisions must clearly explain why evidence is found to be persuasive or unpersuasive. Decisions must address all the evidence and all of the claimant's contentions.

b. Medical Opinions. Medical conclusions must be supported by evidence in the file. Rating specialists cannot refute with their own unsubstantiated medical conclusions medical evidence submitted by the claimant. Recognized medical treatises or an independent medical opinion may be cited to support a conclusion. Such evidence, when relied upon, must be identified in the decision.

[sixthscents]

Wow, good point and good post.

[Berta]

Good post Allan- it often pays to even send them their own regs like this-

I sent them 38 USC 4.3 and 4.6-basically the same thing in M21-1:

This is the html version of the file http://www.warms.vba.va.gov/regs/38CFR/BOOKC/PART4/S4_3.DOC.

G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:fTO-O...=1&ie=UTF-8

Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.

These terms only appear in links pointing to this page: 38cfr bookc part4 s4_3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

§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 F R 42535, Sept. 15, 1975]

§4.6 Evaluation of evidence.

The element of the weight to be accorded the character of the veteran’s service is but one factor entering into the considerations of the rating boards in arriving at determinations of the evaluation of disability. Every element in any way affecting the probative value to be assigned to the evidence in each individual claim must be thoroughly and conscientiously studied by each member of the rating board in the light of the established policies of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the end that decisions will be equitable and just as contemplated by the requirements of the law.

§4.7 Higher of two evaluations.

Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.

§4.9 Congenital or developmental defects.

Mere congenital or developmental defects, absent, displaced or supernumerary parts, refractive error of the eye, personality disorder and mental deficiency are not diseases or injuries in the meaning of applicable legislation for disability compensation purposes.

[41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976]