## Facts

- Frank E. Coburn served on active duty in the U.S. Army from January 1954 to January 1956.
- His service medical records were unavailable and reported as presumed destroyed in the 1973 National Personnel Records Center fire.
- Coburn sought service connection for residuals of bilateral leg and hip injuries, alleging an in-service injury from jumping from a telephone pole while stationed at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.
- A lay statement from Coburn’s sister relayed that their mother reported the incident occurred during Coburn’s service.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals remanded the claim for an orthopedic examination addressing the nature and etiology of any leg or hip disorders.
- In October 2002, a VA examiner reviewed the file and opined it was “at least as likely as not” that Coburn’s leg and hip problems began in service due to the telephone-pole incident.
- On March 24, 2003, the Board denied service connection, discounting the VA nexus opinion and finding no competent nexus evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board erred by rejecting the only favorable medical nexus opinion based on its own medical judgment and perceived factual deficiencies, and by providing inadequate reasons or bases.
2. Whether remand was required for noncompliance with prior remand instructions under *Stegall v. West*.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims set aside the Board’s denial and remanded for readjudication.
- The court held the Board committed legal error by discounting the favorable nexus opinion without relying on independent medical evidence and by failing to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases.
- The court addressed the Secretary’s *Stegall* argument but treated the principal error as the Board’s handling of the existing medical opinion rather than a defect requiring remand solely for compliance.

## Legal Principles

- The Board may rely only on independent medical evidence to support medical determinations and may not substitute its own medical judgment for that of a competent medical professional. *Colvin v. Derwinski*.
- If the Board believes a medical examination or opinion is incomplete or insufficient, the appropriate course is to seek clarification or obtain a new medical opinion, not to reject the opinion based on lay medical speculation.
- The Board must provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for rejecting materially favorable evidence, including a competent nexus opinion, under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1).
- When service records are missing through no fault of the claimant, the Board has a heightened obligation to explain its findings and to apply the benefit-of-the-doubt rule carefully under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

## Conclusion

The court vacated the denial of service connection because the Board improperly discounted the only favorable nexus opinion through its own medical assessment and failed to explain its rejection with sufficient reasons or bases, requiring remand for proper readjudication in light of the medical evidence, lay evidence, and applicable evidentiary standards.


Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 427 (2006)