(a) Service diagnosis. Service department diagnosis of active pulmonary tuberculosis will be accepted unless a board of medical examiners, Clinic Director or Chief, Outpatient Service certifies, after considering all the evidence, including the favoring or opposing tuberculosis and activity, that such diagnosis was incorrect. Doubtful cases may be referred to the Chief Medical Director in Central Office.
(b) Department of Veterans Affairs diagnosis. Diagnosis of active pulmonary tuberculosis by the medical authorities of the Department of Veterans Affairs as the result of examination, observation, or treatment will be accepted for rating purposes. Reference to the Clinic Director or Chief, Outpatient Service, will be in order in questionable cases and, if necessary, to the Chief Medical Director in Central Office.
(c) Private physician's diagnosis. Diagnosis of active pulmonary tuberculosis by private physicians on the basis of their examination, observation or treatment will not be accepted to show the disease was initially manifested after discharge from active service unless confirmed by acceptable clinical, X-ray or laboratory studies, or by findings of active tuberculosis based upon acceptable hospital observation or treatment.
[26 FR 1591, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 27 FR 6387, July 6, 1962; 33 FR 16275, Nov. 6, 1968; 43 FR 45348, Oct. 2, 1978]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1992–1997 · leading case:
Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488 (Vet. App. 1997).
Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488 (Vet. App. 1997).
“181, 184 (1992) (interpreting 38 C.F.R. § 3.374 (c) and holding that private physician’s diagnosis of tuberculosis being manifest during the presumption period must be corroborated by “acceptable clinical, x-ray or laboratory studies”); Espiritu, 2 Vet.”
Tubianosa v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 181 (Vet. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 3.374 (c) (1991). Paragraph (c) then expressly states that when a private physician diagnoses PTB, he or she must include clinical, X-ray, or laboratory studies, or findings of active tuberculosis based upon acceptable hospital observation or treatment.”
Cacalda v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 261 (Vet. App. 1996).
· cites it 3× “Although the Secretary’s assertion that the appellant’s DIC claim requires competent medical evidence of clinical activity, as specified in VA regulations regarding PTB, is accurate in the context of determining a veteran’s entitlement to service connection, see 38 C.F.R. §…”
Salong v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 130 (Vet. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 3.374 (c) (1993). The appellant provided a “certificate” from a private physician, Dr.”
Garcia v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 382 (Vet. App. 1992).
“Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.374 (c) (1991), a private physician’s diagnosis of active PTB “will not be *385 accepted to show the disease was initially manifested after discharge from active service unless confirmed by acceptable clinical, X-ray or laboratory studies, or by…”
Titular v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 350 (Vet. App. 1993).
“However, this evidence does not aid the veteran’s claim, because the doctor’s statement is not “confirmed by acceptable clinical, X-ray or laboratory studies, or findings of active tuberculosis based upon acceptable hospital observation or treatment” pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.