38 U.S.C. § 1153

Aggravation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar

A preexisting injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active military, naval, air, or space service, where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of the disease.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 196 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Dale S. Horn v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231 (Vet. App. 2012).
Dale S. Horn v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231 (Vet. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “4 "A preexisting injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active military, naval, or air service, where there is an increase in disability during service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of…”
John F. Davis, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 276 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 7× “Because the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims correctly construed the “increase in disability,” 38 U.S.C. § 1153 , to require a worsening of the underlying disability, this court affirms.”
Ronald W. Wagner, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 370 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “38 U.S.C. § 1153 . If this burden is met, then the veteran is not entitled to service-connected benefits.”
Thomas G. Joyce v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 36 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “As a threshold matter, the presumption of aggravation (presently set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 1153 ) is generally triggered by evidence that a preexisting disability has undergone an increase in severity in service.”
Browder v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 268 (Vet. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Derwinski (Browder I), the Court held that appellant’s right eye visual acuity had decreased during service and remanded the matter to the BVA with the instruction that the Board apply the presumption of service connection for aggravation of a preexisting injury found in 38…”
James J. Terry, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 340 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “303(c) is consistent with 38 U.S.C. § 1153 . Mr. Terry argues that section 1153 requires that the VA presume that a condition was aggravated by military service if it increased in severity during service unless there is a specific finding that the increase was the natural…”
Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (Vet. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “(Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the Court will use the terms “aggravation” and “aggravated” as general terms referring to any increase in disability.”
Verdon v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 529 (Vet. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “38 U.S.C. § 1153 ; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.”
Thomas G. Joyce, Claimant-Appellant v. R. James Nicholson, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 443 F.3d 845 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “To satisfy the second requirement for rebutting the presumption of soundness, the government must rebut a statutory presumption of aggravation by showing, by clear and unmistakable evidence, either that (1) there was no increase in disability during service, or (2) any increase…”
Joe L. Monzingo v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97 (Vet. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “The pivotal question is whether his hearing acuity worsened during service, see 38 U.S.C. § 1153 (disability noted upon entry to service is presumed to be aggravated in service if there is an increase in disability during service), and Mr.”
Kevin T. Donnellan v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167 (Vet. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Rather, without ever addressing the appellant’s veteran status, the Board applied the presumption of aggravation under 38 U.S.C. § 1153 , which provides that “a preexisting injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active military, naval, or air service,…”
Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532 (Vet. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “225, 227 (1991); and (d) the question whether, under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1153 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (1992) [all subsequent citations to 38 C.”
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.