The Art of Impeachment: Using Reonal & Nieves-Rodriguez to Defeat Flawed C&P Exams

A C&P examiner writes: "The veteran's condition is not related to service." No explanation. No reasoning. No citation of evidence. Just a conclusion.

That's not just a bad opinion. It's legally insufficient.

And thanks to two landmark Federal Circuit cases—Reonal v. Brown and Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake—you have the legal firepower to get that opinion thrown out.

Why These Cases Matter

The VA claims system is supposed to be claimant-friendly. But for decades, the VA relied on cursory, conclusory medical opinions that provided zero explanation. Veterans were denied benefits based on nothing more than an examiner's say-so.

Then the Federal Circuit said: Not anymore.

How to Use These Cases in Your Appeal

When you're challenging a flawed C&P exam, Reonal and Nieves-Rodriguez give you a legal framework to argue that the opinion is inadequate as a matter of law. Here's how to apply them:

Step 1: Identify the Inadequacy

Look for these red flags in the C&P exam:

• Conclusory statements: "The condition is not service-connected." (No explanation why.)
• Speculation: "The veteran's symptoms could be caused by many factors." (No analysis of which factors apply here.)
• Failure to address evidence: The examiner didn't review service treatment records or private medical records.
• Insufficient rationale: The examiner says "no nexus" but doesn't explain the medical reasoning.

Step 2: Cite the Legal Standard

In your brief or rebuttal, explicitly cite Reonal and Nieves-Rodriguez. Explain that under these cases, a medical opinion must:

• Provide clear conclusions
• Include a reasoned explanation
• Address all relevant evidence
• Be based on the facts of this veteran's case, not generalized assumptions

Step 3: Show Why the C&P Exam Fails the Test

Walk the Board through the deficiencies. For example:

Step 4: Request a Remand for a New Exam

Once you've shown the opinion is inadequate, argue that the Board must remand for a new, adequate examination. The Board cannot deny a claim based on a flawed opinion.

Real-World Application: How These Cases Win Appeals

Let's say a veteran claims service connection for PTSD. The C&P examiner writes: "The veteran does not have PTSD. Symptoms are likely due to adjustment disorder." That's it. No discussion of the in-service stressor. No review of buddy statements. No explanation of why the DSM-5 criteria weren't met.

Under Reonal and Nieves-Rodriguez, that opinion is legally insufficient. You argue:

• The examiner failed to address the verified combat stressor (violation of Nieves-Rodriguez).
• The examiner provided no rationale for the "adjustment disorder" diagnosis (violation of Reonal).
• The examiner ignored lay evidence from the veteran's spouse and fellow service members (violation of Nieves-Rodriguez).

Result? The Board must remand for a new exam. And if you've already submitted a private IMO that does address all the evidence, the Board may grant service connection outright.

The Bigger Picture: Why These Cases Protect Veterans

Before Reonal and Nieves-Rodriguez, the VA could deny claims with nothing more than a one-line opinion from a C&P examiner. These cases force the VA to do what it should have been doing all along: provide evidence-based, reasoned medical opinions.

As an attorney or advocate, these cases are your best tools for holding the VA accountable. Use them.

Need a Legally Sufficient Rebuttal?

I've written hundreds of C&P rebuttals that meet the Reonal standard: clear conclusions, reasoned explanations, and comprehensive review of all evidence. If you need an opinion that the Board can't dismiss, let's talk.

Request Expert Rebuttal