## Facts

- Marvin Robinson served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from October 16, 1986, to April 14, 1988.
- During service, he was diagnosed with peptic-ulcer disease; VA later granted service connection for that disability effective the day after discharge.
- In 1998, Robinson sought service connection for heart and thyroid conditions, asserting they were secondary to his service-connected peptic-ulcer disease.
- The RO denied the heart and thyroid claims; Robinson (represented by counsel) appealed, expressly framing the dispute as secondary service connection.
- After additional development, a VA medical examination concluded the heart and thyroid disorders were not caused by the service-connected ulcer disability.
- The Board denied the claims, addressing only secondary service connection; Robinson had not raised direct service connection during the agency proceedings.
- On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Robinson argued for the first time that the Board should have considered direct service connection.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board must sua sponte address a direct-service-connection theory not asserted by a claimant represented by counsel and consistently pursuing only secondary service connection.
2. How far the Board’s obligation to liberally read filings extends when evaluating theories of entitlement not expressly raised.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the Board’s denial of service connection for the heart and thyroid conditions.
- The court held the Board must address issues and theories reasonably raised by the claimant or the evidence of record.
- The court held the Board is not required to raise and decide an entirely new theory of entitlement (direct service connection) that was not asserted before the agency and was not reasonably raised by the record.
- The court emphasized that representation by counsel permits the Board to assume the claimant is advancing the strongest arguments and chosen theory, absent record evidence reasonably raising others.

## Legal Principles

- The Board must consider all issues reasonably raised by a liberal reading of the substantive appeal and by the evidence of record.
- The duty to address theories is limited to those reasonably raised; the Board need not conjure up alternative theories unsupported by the claimant’s submissions or record evidence.
- When a claimant is represented by counsel, the Board may generally rely on counsel’s framing of the claim and is not required to invent additional theories contrary to that strategy.
- VA’s pro-claimant, nonadversarial process and duty to assist do not impose a free-standing obligation to identify and reject every conceivable legal theory.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Board satisfies its obligations by addressing theories reasonably raised by the claimant or the evidentiary record, and it does not commit error by declining to sua sponte adjudicate an unraised direct-service-connection theory for a veteran represented by counsel who pursued only secondary service connection.


Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545 (2008)