## Facts

- Grant J. Davidson served in the U.S. Army from 1967 to 1972, including combat service in Vietnam, and experienced anxiety before and during service.
- On July 8, 1973, he drowned while swimming at a recreation facility operated by his employer; the death certificate listed the death as accidental.
- In 1975, his widow, Bertha G. Davidson, sought VA dependency and indemnity compensation and related benefits; VA denied the claim, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals found the accidental drowning not service connected.
- In 1999, she sought to reopen the claim; the Board reopened it in 2005 and obtained a VA psychiatric review.
- A VA psychiatrist opined it was not at least as likely as not that an in-service acquired psychiatric disability caused or materially contributed to Mr. Davidson’s death.
- Ms. Davidson submitted lay statements and testimony asserting that her husband died by suicide due to a service-related mental disorder and describing post-service symptoms and behavior.
- The Board treated her lay evidence as not competent on the medical nexus question and again denied service connection for the cause of death.
- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed, reasoning that only medical evidence could establish nexus in this context.

## Issues

1. Whether 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) permits a categorical rule requiring medical evidence to prove nexus, thereby excluding lay evidence as a matter of law.
2. Whether the Board and Veterans Court applied an incorrect legal standard by deeming lay testimony incompetent merely because it addressed nexus.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit vacated the Veterans Court’s decision and remanded.
- The court held the Veterans Court incorrectly interpreted § 1154(a) to require a medical opinion to prove nexus between a veteran’s death and in-service disease or injury.
- The court rejected any categorical rule that medical evidence is always required to establish nexus.
- The court directed that lay evidence must be evaluated for competency and sufficiency on a case-by-case basis rather than excluded by a blanket rule.

## Legal Principles

- Under 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a), VA must give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating service-connection claims.
- There is no categorical rule that competent lay evidence cannot establish nexus; lay evidence may be sufficient in appropriate circumstances.
- Competency of lay evidence is a legal question that depends on whether the matter is one a layperson can address through observation and experience; credibility and weight are factual determinations for the factfinder.
- Adjudicators must not reject lay evidence solely because it is not medical evidence; instead, they must determine whether the specific lay testimony is competent and probative for the issue presented.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded because the Veterans Court and the Board applied an improper categorical requirement of medical nexus evidence, contrary to § 1154(a), and failed to assess lay evidence for competency and sufficiency on a case-specific basis.


Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009)