Citation Nr: 18106909 Decision Date: 06/01/18 Archive Date: 05/31/18 DOCKET NO. 14-21 763 DATE: June 1, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease as secondary to the service-connected residuals of traumatic brain injury (TBI) with cognitive disorder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a July 2011 rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease as secondary to the service-connected residuals of TBI with cognitive disorder. 2. The evidence received since the prior final denial is cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the prior denial and does not establish a fact necessary for the claim of entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease as secondary to the service-connected residuals of TBI with cognitive disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The July 2011 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.110 (2017). 2. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease as secondary to the service-connected residuals of TBI with cognitive disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service from July 1985 to August 1989 and from December 2003 to March 2005. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Whether new and material evidence has been received in order to reopen a claim for service connection Parkinson’s disease as secondary to the service-connected residuals of TBI with cognitive disorder. Legal Criteria Service connection for VA compensation purposes will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or personal injury incurred in the line of duty or for aggravation of a preexisting injury in active military service. 38 U.S.C.§ 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a) (2017). Where a service connection claim has been finally decided, VA, before addressing that claim anew, must first determine whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2017). If new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a final decision, the Secretary shall reopen and review the former disposition of that claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. The requirement of submitting new and material evidence to reopen a claim is a material legal issue that the Board is required to address on appeal regardless of the RO’s determination. Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383-84 (Fed. Cir. 1996). VA regulations define “new” evidence as existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. “Material” evidence is defined as existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). New and material evidence cannot be cumulative or redundant and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Id. If new and material evidence is received prior to the expiration of the appeal period following a particular rating decision, it will be considered as having been filed in connection with the claim which was pending at the beginning of the appeal period. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (b). The Board finds that the Veteran has not submitted new and material evidence to warrant reopening his previously denied claim for service connection for Parkinson’s disease as secondary to the service-connected residuals of TBI with cognitive disorder. In a July 2011 rating decision, the RO denied the claim for entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease as secondary to the service-connected residuals of TBI with cognitive disorder. The RO found that Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease was not incurred in or aggravated by his military service and his Parkinson’s disease was not caused or aggravated by his service-connected TBI. The Veteran was notified of his appellate rights. A notice of disagreement was not received within the subsequent one-year period, nor was any new and material evidence received during that time period. Therefore, the July 2011 rating decision became final. Evidence of record at the time of the July 2011 rating decision includes the following: service personnel records; the Veteran’s service treatment records, showing no treatment, complaints, or diagnosis of Parkin’s disease; December 2010 rating decision which included the November 2010 VA examination report, which provided a negative opinion between the Veteran’s claimed disability and his military service, and a negative opinion between the Veteran’s claimed disability and service-connected TBI; VA treatment records showing a diagnosis and treatment of Parkinson’s disease; and the Veteran’s lay statement indicating that his Parkinson’s disease is related to his service and service-connected TBI. Since the previous denial, the Veteran has submitted evidence to include additional VA treatment records showing treatment for Parkinson’s disease and the Veteran’s lay statements asserting that his Parkinson’s disease is related to his service-connected TBI. Although this evidence is, new it is not material to establish a fact necessary for the claim for entitlement to service connection. The Veteran’s testimony and medical evidence is cumulative and redundant to facts already established. The new evidence does not establish a fact necessary to link the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease to his military service or his service-connected TBI. Therefore, the Board finds that although this evidence is new and it is not material. The Board notes that 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(d) provides that a veteran who has a service-connected TBI, the following shall be held to be the proximate result of the service-connected TBI, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary: (i) Parkinsonism, including Parkinson's disease, following moderate or severe TBI. This provision is inapplicable to the claim as the record does not show moderate or severe TBI. (Continued on the next page)   In sum, the evidence received since the July 2011 rating decision does not offer any new, probative information pertaining to the Veteran’s claim, namely competent evidence linking his disability to his service. Accordingly, the Board concludes that new and material evidence has not been presented. Therefore, the claim may not be reopened. K. J. ALIBRANDO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Baxter, Associate Counsel