Case Citation: A25029009

Three precedents. One bad exam. A multi-year claim sent back to the start.

This case is about a lumbosacral strain, back pain, basically, but it could be a knee claim, a shoulder claim, a hip claim, or any other musculoskeletal claim where the VA leans on a C&P exam to make the call. The Board didn't grant. The Board didn't deny. The Board did the third thing: it remanded.

I want to walk through this one carefully, because remand is the most misunderstood outcome at the BVA. It looks like a win on paper, the veteran didn't lose. But it isn't a win. It's a procedural reset that buys the veteran more development at the cost of more time. Years more time, in many cases.

This case is also one of the cleanest examples I've seen of the "inadequate C&P exam" argument working, and working specifically because the exam violated three separate Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) precedents in a single sitting. Correia, Jones, and Miller. If you understand those three cases, you understand a huge fraction of remand decisions in the BVA dataset.

What evidence wins a VA claimFree

Strong medical opinions won 89.7% of the time in our analysis. Weak ones won just 3.7%.

  • Know what makes a medical opinion harder to dismiss.
  • Use your own statement where it can carry real weight.
  • Catch common C&P exam problems before they hurt your claim.
Get the free guide

The Hook

The veteran filed for service connection for lumbosacral strain. He reported worsening back pain, numbness, tingling, lower-extremity pain. The kind of symptoms that suggest radiculopathy, where nerve compression in the spine sends symptoms down the leg.

VA scheduled a C&P exam. The examiner saw him in February 2023. The exam report came back, and the VA decided the claim using that exam as the medical evidence.

The veteran appealed. The Board read the February 2023 exam, compared it to what CAVC case law requires, and concluded the exam was inadequate. The Board's own language:

"The Board finds there was a pre-decisional duty to assist error in failing to obtain a medical examination that is sufficient to make an informed decision on the claim."

The Board didn't decide the claim on the merits. It couldn't, the evidence the rater used wasn't usable. So the Board sent the case back to the regional office to redo the exam properly.

That's a remand. It's a "go fix this" order from the Board to VA's lower processing tiers.

What Happened (The Quick Version)

  • Condition: Lumbosacral strain. Claim included worsening symptoms with radiculopathy features, numbness, tingling, pain in lower extremities.
  • C&P exam: February 2023. Conducted by a VA examiner.
  • The exam's problems, per the Board: failed to measure when pain began on range of motion testing; failed to address the veteran's lay statements about radiculopathy; failed to assess functioning without the ameliorative effects of medication; ambiguous statements about whether observed leg symptoms were related to the lumbosacral strain or to an unrelated motorbike accident.
  • Outcome: Remanded.
  • Three CAVC precedents the Board cited as governing: Correia v. McDonald (2017), Jones v. Shinseki (2010) / Ingram clarification, Miller v. Wilkie (2018).
  • Aggregate context: 52.0% of all C&P exams in our 101,518-condition-record dataset drawn from 49,876 Board decisions were flagged inadequate. Condition records with inadequate exams ended in grant or remand 81.8% of the time.

The veteran's procedural odyssey is now extended by the time it takes VA to redo the exam and re-decide. Possibly a year. Possibly two. Bittersweet doesn't quite cover it.

Why This Case Matters

A few specific reasons this one deserves a careful read:

  • The "inadequate exam" argument is the most underused tool in the appeals process. Veterans typically fight C&P exams on the substance, "the examiner is wrong about my condition." That's a hard fight. Fighting on the procedure, "the examiner didn't follow CAVC requirements", is often easier and forces a redo.
  • Correia, Jones, and Miller together cover the overwhelming majority of musculoskeletal C&P exam failures. If you know what each one requires, you can read your own exam report and spot the violations.
  • The case is a reminder that remand isn't a victory. The veteran is back to waiting. Many veterans don't realize that "Board sent it back" can mean another year-plus of delay before any actual decision on the merits.

Let me walk through the procedural posture, then unpack each of the three precedents in turn.

What the Board Said

The Board's reasoning, verbatim from the decision:

"The Board found the February 2023 VA examination inadequate because it failed to properly measure range of motion per Correia requirements, did not address the veteran's lay statements about radiculopathy, and did not assess the condition without medication effects per Jones/Ingram."

That single sentence is the whole spine of the decision. Three legal failures. One ruling. Remand.

The Board also pointed to specific ambiguity in the exam report itself:

"the examiner indicated the Veteran's 'leg injury' was related to a motor bike accident and not his lumbosacral strain, it is unclear whether the examiner was referring to the Veteran's asserted lower extremity radiculopathy or some other leg injury"

This is a separate problem from the three precedent violations, it's just unclear writing. The examiner referred to "a leg injury" without specifying whether that meant the radiculopathy the veteran was claiming or some other event entirely. The Board can't decide a claim on an ambiguous record. That alone could have triggered a remand.

The third quote from the Board sharpens what was wrong with the range-of-motion testing:

"the examiner did not provide measurements indicating at what point pain set in"

That's the Correia violation in one line. The examiner moved the joint. The examiner recorded a maximum range. The examiner did not record the angle at which the veteran started reporting pain. Under Correia, that's not a competent range-of-motion exam.

The First Precedent: Correia v. McDonald (2017). Range of Motion the Way It Has to Be Done

What Correia changed about ROM testing

Correia is, in my read of the data, the single most-violated CAVC precedent in C&P exams. It's a 2017 case that changed how VA examiners are supposed to conduct range-of-motion testing on joints.

Before Correia, range-of-motion testing was loose. An examiner could ask you to flex forward, measure the maximum bend, and write down a single number. After Correia, that's not enough.

The Correia rule requires:

  • Active range of motion (you doing it under your own muscle power).
  • Passive range of motion (the examiner moving the joint for you).
  • Weight-bearing range of motion (where applicable, for spine and lower extremity).
  • Non-weight-bearing range of motion (where applicable).
  • The point in the arc of motion at which pain begins.

That last one, the pain onset measurement, is where most examiners fail. The veteran can usually bend further than where it stops hurting. The maximum range is one number. The pain-onset range is a separate, smaller number. The rating schedule cares about both, because a back that hurts at 30 degrees of flexion is rated differently from a back that hurts at 70 degrees.

In this case, the Board's specific finding was that the examiner "did not provide measurements indicating at what point pain set in." Pure Correia violation. The veteran's actual functional range, the range he can use without pain, wasn't measured. That makes the exam report unusable for rating purposes.

If you have a musculoskeletal C&P exam in your file, pull it up and find the range-of-motion table. Look for the column that records the angle at which pain begins. If that column is blank, or if it just says "pain noted" without a number, you have a Correia issue.

The Second Precedent: Jones v. Shinseki (2010). The Medication Effects Rule

Jones v. Shinseki and the Ingram clarification together address a problem that's particularly acute for veterans with conditions that are actively being treated.

The problem: if you're taking medication that reduces your symptoms, and the C&P exam measures your functioning while you're on that medication, the exam is measuring your medicated state, not your underlying disability.

Imagine a back claim where the veteran is on a daily NSAID, a muscle relaxant, and a low-dose nerve agent for radiculopathy. With all of that on board, he can flex 60 degrees with mild discomfort. Without it, he can flex 30 degrees with severe pain.

If the examiner only measures the medicated state, the rating reflects functioning the veteran can only achieve with continuous pharmacological support. That's not what the rating schedule is supposed to capture. The schedule is supposed to capture the underlying disability, with allowances for whether the medication itself causes side effects or interferes with daily life.

The Jones rule, in plain English: when medication has an ameliorative effect, meaning it actually reduces your symptoms, the examiner must address what your functioning would look like without it.

This isn't asking the examiner to take you off your medication. It's asking the examiner to evaluate, in writing, how the medication is affecting the measurements and to estimate the un-medicated baseline.

In this case, the veteran was clearly on medication for the back condition. The Board found the examiner did not assess the condition "without medication effects." So the measurements in the exam report reflect the medicated state, not the disability itself. That's a Jones violation.

If you're on medication for a service-connected (or claimed) condition, look at your C&P exam report. Does the examiner explicitly discuss your medications and address how they affect your functioning? If not, you have a Jones issue.

The Third Precedent: Miller v. Wilkie (2018). The Lay Statement Rule

Miller v. Wilkie addresses the obligation of a VA examiner to engage with the veteran's own statements about symptoms.

The rule: VA examiners must address competent lay statements about symptoms, even when those symptoms are not documented in the contemporaneous medical records.

This sits next to Buchanan v. Nicholson, which I cover at length in another post. Buchanan says VA can't reject lay testimony just because the records don't echo it. Miller is the C&P examiner version, if you, as the veteran, tell the examiner you have certain symptoms, the examiner must engage with that statement in writing. Acknowledge it. Either credit it or explain why not. Silence isn't an option.

In this case, the veteran reported radiculopathy symptoms, numbness, tingling, lower-extremity pain. These are competent lay observations. He can feel his own leg going numb. He doesn't need a neurologist to tell him so.

The February 2023 examiner did not address those statements. The Board's finding: "Examiner failed to address veteran's lay statements per Miller v. Wilkie."

If you've reported specific symptoms to a C&P examiner, fatigue, pain frequency, episodes of incapacity, side effects, observable physical signs, and your exam report doesn't mention them, you may have a Miller issue. This is particularly common for symptoms that aren't easily measured on the spot during a one-hour exam.

What "Inadequate" Means at the Board

Three legal failures stacked on the same exam triggered a finding of inadequacy. The duty-to-assist consequence kicks in from there.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A and Barr v. Nicholson, VA owes the veteran an adequate exam when one is required. An adequate exam is one that's responsive to the claim, addresses the relevant rating criteria, engages with the veteran's contentions, and follows the procedural framework laid out in the regulations and CAVC case law.

An inadequate exam doesn't discharge that duty. The Board's framework for what happens next: it can either decide the claim on the remaining evidence (if that evidence is sufficient) or remand for a new exam. In a musculoskeletal claim, where the C&P exam is the primary medical evidence, there is almost never enough remaining evidence to grant the claim outright. So the remand is the default.

The 81.8% grant-or-remand rate among inadequate-exam cases in the broader dataset reflects this. When VA examiners get it wrong on the procedural rules, the Board sends the case back rather than punishing the veteran for the examiner's errors. That's the procedural protection working as designed.

The Cost of a Remand

I want to be honest about what the veteran in this case actually won.

He won the right to a new exam. He won a Board finding that the prior exam was inadequate. He did not win service connection for his back. He did not win a rating. He did not win any retroactive payments.

What's the timeline cost? It varies, but in the BVA-to-RO-to-Board pipeline I see in the data, a remand typically extends the claim by twelve to twenty-four months. The case has to:

  • Travel back to the regional office.
  • Be re-scheduled for a new exam that complies with the Board's instructions.
  • Wait for the new exam to actually happen (often three to six months out from the schedule date).
  • Get a new rating decision based on the new exam.
  • If the new decision is still adverse, the veteran has to appeal back to the Board.
  • Get back into the Board's docket for a fresh decision.

A claim that was filed in 2020 might not see a final disposition until 2026 or later if it goes through this loop once. If the redo exam is ALSO inadequate, and yes, that happens, there can be a second remand from a future Board decision.

This is the dark side of the inadequate-exam doctrine. The protection is real. The cost is also real.

Across the dataset, the median time-to-final-decision for remanded cases is dramatically longer than for granted or denied cases. I won't put a single number on it because the data isn't clean enough to call a precise median, but the difference is years, not months.

If you're appealing and your strongest argument is exam inadequacy, you have a high probability of forcing a remand. You also have a low probability of getting fast money. Make that tradeoff with eyes open.

What This Means For Your Claim

Five specific things to do if you suspect your C&P exam may be inadequate:

  • Pull the exam report. You can request it through the Privacy Act / FOIA. You can find it in your claim file via VA.gov in many cases. Read it carefully. Don't trust the rating decision's summary of the exam, read the actual exam Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) or narrative report.
  • Check the Correia checklist for musculoskeletal exams. Is there a range-of-motion table? Does it record active AND passive measurements? Weight-bearing AND non-weight-bearing? Most importantly, is there a column for the angle at which pain begins, and is that column filled in?
  • Check Jones if you're on medication. Does the report mention what medications you take for the condition? Does the examiner discuss how those medications affect your functioning? Does the examiner estimate or address your un-medicated baseline?
  • Check Miller against your lay statements. What did you tell the examiner during the exam? Did you describe specific symptoms, frequency, severity, triggers, impacts on daily activity? Look in the exam report for whether those statements are recorded and whether the examiner addresses them. If your statements are missing or are recorded but not engaged with, you have a Miller argument.
  • Submit a written argument identifying the specific violations. Don't just say "the exam was inadequate." Cite the specific CAVC case. Quote the language from the exam that violates it. Submit this as a buddy statement, an appellant's brief, or a written argument depending on your appeal lane.

The Three Inadequacy Patterns Show Up Together

One thing I want to flag: it's rare to see only one of these three violations. When a C&P exam is bad, it tends to be bad in multiple ways.

Examiners who skip the Correia pain-onset measurement also tend to skip the Jones medication discussion. Examiners who don't engage with the veteran's lay statements (Miller) often don't engage with the veteran's medication effects either (Jones). The same procedural shortcut that produces one violation tends to produce others.

So when you read your own exam report, don't stop after spotting the first issue. Check all three. The Board's decision in this case found three separate violations stacked on the same exam. That's not unusual. That's the typical pattern when an examiner is rushing.

What the Data Can't Tell Me

A few honest limits.

First, I'm working from the Board's structured findings about the February 2023 exam. I don't have the actual exam report in front of me. I can't independently verify, for instance, whether the examiner truly recorded zero pain-onset measurements or whether the Board read the report and found the measurements insufficient. The Board's finding is the authoritative call, but I can't grade their work against the source document.

Second, the aggregate 52% inadequate-exam rate I cite is across the full 101,518-condition-record dataset drawn from 49,876 Board decisions. That's the rate at which exams that reached the BVA are flagged inadequate. The rate at the rating level, across all C&P exams VA conducts, is probably lower, because many exams are good enough to support a grant at the regional office and never need scrutiny. There's a selection effect: bad exams disproportionately get appealed.

Third, I can't tell you whether the veteran in A25029009 ultimately won his claim. The case I have is the remand decision. The next step, the redo exam and re-decision, is downstream of what's in my dataset. Some remanded claims get granted on rehearing. Some get denied. Some loop back to the Board for another remand. The remand outcome here doesn't predict the eventual disposition.

Fourth, the three-precedent stack is what the Board cited, but the case may have had additional issues the Board didn't bother to articulate because the three were sufficient. Once a Board identifies enough grounds for remand, it often doesn't enumerate every other problem with the record. So the underlying exam may have been worse than the decision suggests.

Lessons

If you take five things from this case, take these:

  • A C&P exam can fail on procedure, not just on conclusion. You don't have to prove the examiner was wrong. You only have to show the examiner skipped a step the law requires.
  • Correia, Jones, and Miller are not exotic case law. They are part of every musculoskeletal C&P examiner's training. When examiners skip these requirements, it's not because the rules are obscure, it's because the exam was rushed.
  • Remand is a real outcome with real benefits, and real costs. It's not a denial. It's not a grant. It's a procedural reset that buys you a redo. The redo can fix the case. It can also produce another inadequate exam. The clock keeps running.
  • You can read your own exam report. Most veterans don't. The DBQ is plain English. You can spot Correia violations in five minutes if you know what to look for.
  • Inadequate-exam arguments win when they cite specific case law. "The exam was unfair" doesn't move the Board. "The exam violated Correia because the pain-onset measurements are missing from the lumbar flexion table" moves the Board.

Bottom Line

Citation A25029009 is a textbook example of why C&P exam quality matters, why veterans need to read their own exam reports, and why the Board protects the procedural floor even when it can't grant the claim outright.

The veteran here didn't get money. He got a remand. The Board's order forces VA to redo the exam in a way that complies with Correia, Jones, and Miller. If the redo exam is done properly and the underlying facts support service connection, he'll win at the regional office. If not, he'll be back at the Board.

For your own case: if your C&P exam reads like the one the Board found inadequate here, no pain-onset measurements, no medication discussion, no engagement with your lay statements, you have a procedural argument that's worth making. It won't fast-track your money. It will force a redo. That may be the only way forward when the substance of your claim depends on a competent medical exam that you haven't gotten yet.

Methodology and Limitations

  • Data source: Claim Raven's analysis of BVA decision A25029009, drawing on the published Board decision and structured case-analysis data extracted from the decision text.
  • Verified quotes: The three quoted passages attributed to the Board in this post are taken verbatim from the decision's verified_quotes field in the underlying case analysis record. The va_errors list (four items, including the three CAVC precedent violations) is also verbatim from the record.
  • Aggregate context: The 52% inadequate-exam rate and 81.8% grant-or-remand rate for inadequate-exam cases are calculated across the full 101,518-condition-record dataset drawn from 49,876 Board decisions.
  • Limitations: This is a single-case analysis. I have not reviewed the underlying C&P exam report or the veteran's full claim file. I have the Board's characterization of the exam, not the exam itself. The remand outcome reflects the Board's findings as of the decision date; downstream outcomes (the redo exam and any subsequent decision) are not in this analysis. Procedural timelines for remanded cases vary widely; the "years not months" framing reflects general patterns in the dataset, not a precise median.

Disclaimer

I'm not accredited by VA, not a lawyer, not a VSO. This is data analysis, not claim advice. These are patterns from cases that made it to the BVA, they don't predict individual outcomes. If you need help with your claim, work with an accredited representative.

Where to go next

  • Relevant tool: Evidence Checklists, what Correia, Sharp, and Barr together demand from a C&P exam
  • More analysis: /blog
  • Disclaimer: Claim Raven is data analysis, not legal, medical, or VA-accredited advice.

-Landon Founder, Claim Raven | U.S. Army Veteran