Duty to Assist

[Huggy]

Greetings,

Here's something that just wormed its way into my little pea brain.  Does the VA's duty to assist apply to this scenario:  I submitted a claim for several things a few years ago.  I admit that I did not do my due diligence and was not aware of secondary connections, so I simply submitted the claim without mention of any secondary connections--all conditions I included in the claim claim were denied in a prompt and efficient manner--no direct service connection.  I know know that the claim would have been better suited if I would have stated "as secondary to XXX", or whatever the phraseology is.  I'm wondering if the person reviewing my claim should have asked if these issues were secondary to my service connected issue--would that not fall under "duty to assist", or when they talk about duty to assist, are they simply referring to scheduling C&P exams and the like?

I know these people are extremely busy, and they certainly can't determine intent--they probably have to deal with what is presented to them.  Just wondering!

Thanks!

Huggy

[Mr cue]

On 2/4/2022 at 2:07 PM, Huggy said:

Does the VA's duty to assist apply to this scenario:  I submitted a claim for several things a few years ago.  I admit that I did not do my due diligence and was not aware of secondary connections, so I simply submitted the claim without mention of any secondary connections--all conditions I included in the claim claim were denied

No it doesn't .

His issue fall under this but I will let it go

 

On 2/4/2022 at 6:48 PM, Mr cue said:

. Reasonably Raised Issues

It is well settled that on appeal the Board has a duty to address all issues reasonably raised either by the appellant or by the contents of the record. Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552-56 (2008). In Robinson the Court determined that, because proceedings before VA are nonadversarial, "the Board's obligation to analyze claims goes beyond the arguments explicitly made." 21 Vet. App. 545, 553 (2008), aff'd sub nom. Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). "It is entirely possible that the record might 'indicate' a theory of entitlement, but that a lay appellant might not be sophisticated enough to recognize the theory," meaning that "a theory can be both unknown to the appellant and suggested by the record." Id. (citing Ingram v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 232, 25657 (2007))