## Facts

- Anthony Perry served on active duty from 1966 to 1968; his pre-induction examination noted no cardiac or blood-pressure abnormalities.
- During service, he experienced dizziness, lightheadedness with exertion, and episodes of loss of consciousness; contemporaneous evaluations did not identify an underlying condition.
- Roughly two decades after discharge, he developed hypertension, suffered a heart attack, and received a pacemaker.
- In 1989, he sought service connection for a cardiovascular disorder.
- A private cardiologist opined that Perry’s in-service episodes were early manifestations of a later cardiac disease involving inadequate cardiac output.
- Perry submitted lay statements from co-workers describing similar symptoms over the years after service.
- The VA regional office denied service connection for lack of a nexus.
- On appeal, the Board remanded for a VA cardiology examination; the VA examiner reported no evidence connecting the in-service symptoms to the later cardiac condition.
- The Board then denied the claim, finding the VA opinion more probative than the private opinion and lay statements.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or bases for discounting a private medical nexus opinion and lay continuity evidence in favor of a VA examiner’s negative opinion.
2. Whether the Board satisfied VA’s duty to assist by relying on an examination and medical opinion that did not meaningfully address material favorable evidence or reconcile competing medical views.

## Decision

- The court vacated the Board’s denial of service connection and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that the Board’s explanation for its weighing of the medical and lay evidence was legally inadequate.
- The court directed further development and readjudication consistent with the requirements for an adequate record and an adequate statement of reasons or bases.

## Legal Principles

- The Board must provide reasons or bases sufficient to permit understanding and judicial review of its findings on material issues. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1).
- When medical opinions conflict, the Board must explain why it assigns greater probative weight to one opinion, addressing the substance and reasoning of competing competent evidence rather than announcing a preference.
- Lay evidence is competent to describe observable symptoms; the Board must address and weigh such evidence when it bears on continuity of symptomatology.
- VA’s duty to assist requires development of a record adequate for decision; reliance on a conclusory medical opinion that fails to engage with relevant history and favorable evidence can require remand. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (as then in effect).

## Conclusion

The court vacated and remanded because the Board did not adequately justify rejecting a supportive private nexus opinion and continuity-related lay evidence, and it accepted a VA opinion without sufficient analysis or development to permit lawful denial and meaningful judicial review.


Perry v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 2 (1996)