Walsh v. Wilkie
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
32 Vet. App. 300 (2020)

- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Elizabeth Walsh (plaintiff) injured both knees while training in the US Army Reserves. Over the following years, Walsh was granted service connection for bilateral knee conditions, low-back disability, and arthritis in both hips. Walsh later also sought disability compensation for hypertension and sleep apnea. A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (defendant) examiner reported that both conditions were likely connected to Walsh’s obesity. The regional office (RO) denied the claims and Walsh appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the board). On appeal to the board, Walsh reported that she was active and athletic prior to her injuries during service. The board remanded the claims to the RO instructing an examiner to consider whether Walsh’s obesity, as a cause of the sleep apnea and hypertension, might have been caused or aggravated by Walsh’s service-connected disabilities. Before the RO issued another decision on the claim, G.C. Precedent Opinion 1-2017 was issued, stating that obesity was not a disease or injury and could therefore not be the basis for a service-connected disability but that obesity could be an intermediate step between an existing service-connected disability and a current secondary service-connected disability. The RO then requested a report on Walsh’s claims from a new examiner in accordance with 1-2017. The examiner concluded that there was no clear-cut cause-effect relationship between Walsh’s disabilities (knee pain, back pain, and arthritis) and obesity. The RO and subsequently the board relied on this report in finding that Walsh’s obesity could not be attributed to Walsh’s service-connected disabilities and denied a service connection for hypertension and sleep apnea. Walsh appealed, and on appeal Walsh argued that the VA examiner, the RO, and the board had failed to consider whether Walsh’s obesity was aggravated by service-connected disabilities, as required by 1-2017.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Toth, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.