In Davidson v. Shinseki (link here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-7075.pdf), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reminded the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“CAVC”) that medical evidence is not always necessary for a claimant to be granted VA benefits. In Davidson, the late-veteran’s widow sought VA survivors benefits, asserting that her husband’s death by drowning was suicide due to a service-connected psychiatric disability. VA denied the claim based on a VA psychiatrist’s opinion that the veteran did not commit suicide, and did not have a service-connected psychiatric disability. Mrs. Davidson explained her contrary opinion in oral and written testimony. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals rejected her testimony in favor of the VA psychiatrist’s opinion, stating that she was not competent to render opinions on medical questions. The CAVC agreed, stating that a medical opinion linking a veteran’s death to a service-connected disability is necessary even if there is lay testimony supporting such a finding.
Representing herself, Mrs. Davidson appealed to the Federal Circuit, which held that the CAVC’s decision “is in direct conflict with our precedent” that medical evidence is not always required to resolve issues of medical diagnosis or causation. The court returned the case back to the CAVC for a new decision. Although Mrs. Davidson may not ultimately persuade the CAVC that her opinion should be considered the equal of the psychiatrist’s, the Court’s decision reinforces that claimants’ statements cannot be gratuitously disregarded just because they do not have medical training.
