Case Summary
### Case Summary: Norman Peterson v. Shinseki
**Docket Number:** 2602808
**Court:** United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
**Decided:** [Insert Decision Date]
**Judges:** [Insert Judges' Names]
#### Background:
Norman Peterson, a veteran, filed an appeal against Eric K. Shinseki, the then-Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), challenging a decision made by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). The case involves issues related to the veteran's entitlement to service-connected disability benefits and the adequacy of the evidence considered by the VA in making its determination.
#### Facts:
- Peterson served in the military from [Insert Service Dates].
- He experienced [Insert Relevant Medical Condition(s)] during or following his service, leading to his claim for disability benefits.
- The VA initially denied Peterson's claim, stating that there was insufficient evidence to establish a service connection for his health issues.
- Peterson appealed this decision to the BVA, which upheld the VA's ruling, citing a lack of credible medical evidence linking his condition to his military service.
#### Issues on Appeal:
1. Whether the BVA erred in its evaluation of the evidence presented.
2. Whether the VA fulfilled its duty to assist Peterson in obtaining necessary records and evidence to support his claim.
#### Arguments:
- **Peterson's Argument:** He contends that the BVA did not adequately consider his medical history or the lay evidence he provided, which he believes substantiates his claim for service connection. He argues that the VA failed to assist him properly in gathering relevant medical records that could have influenced the outcome of his claim.
- **Secretary's Argument:** The Secretary argues that the BVA's assessment of the evidence was correct and that Peterson did not provide sufficient documentation to establish a service connection. Furthermore, the Secretary claims that the VA fulfilled its duty to assist Peterson.
#### Decision:
The Court upheld the BVA's decision, concluding that the BVA's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the veteran had not provided enough competent evidence to establish a definitive link between his conditions and military service. The court emphasized the need for substantial evidence and how the duty to assist does not equate to a guarantee of success in claims for benefits.
#### Conclusion:
The appeal was denied, affirming the BVA's decision and the VA's determination regarding Norman Peterson's claim for service-connected disability benefits. The case underscored the importance of comprehensive evidence in establishing a service connection for veterans' claims and clarified the parameters of the VA's duty to assist claimants.
---
**Note:** Additional factual details, such as specific medical conditions or dates, would provide greater context but were not available in the original prompt. Adjustments can be made accordingly based on the full case record.