King v. Shinseki

Nathan King (plaintiff) was granted service-connected benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) (defendant) for knee disabilities. King later sought additional benefits for hip and back disabilities that he claimed were secondary to his service-connected knee condition. The VA denied his claim, and King appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals (the board). King and his wife both provided lay testimony to the board attesting that King’s back and hip conditions were caused by his knee disabilities. There was contrary medical evidence in the record, however, including the opinion of a VA orthopedist finding it was unlikely that either the hip or the back condition was caused by King’s knee disabilities. The board considered the Kings’ lay testimony but eventually held that their testimony was not competent regarding medical causation and that the medical evidence was entitled to more probative weight. The board denied King’s claim. King appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the veterans court). The veterans court acknowledged that lay testimony could be used to establish causation but held that the board was not required to accept all lay statements and had not erred by considering the Kings’ testimony and then giving more weight to the medical evidence. The veterans court upheld the board’s decision, and King appealed.