ATRIAL FIBRILLATION OR ATRIAL FLUTTER
ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR · 2026 · Case ID: A26035565
Summary
The Veteran, a Navy Veteran who served from June 1975 to September 2003, appeals the denial of service connection for atrial fibrillation. The Veteran submitted a private medical assessment in November 2024, diagnosing atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and sudden cardiac arrest. The private physician reviewed the Veteran's entire claims file and relevant medical literature, opining that the Veteran's heart condition is at least as likely as not to have begun during active service. The physician noted decreased exercise tolerance during service and a cardiology evaluation in 2001, with progressive decline leading to atrial fibrillation in 2017. The Board found this private opinion to be well-reasoned, detailed, and consistent with the Veteran's history, assigning it significant probative value. The Board also considered the benefit of the doubt doctrine, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor. Consequently, the Board found the Veteran's atrial fibrillation to be the result of his active service. Service connection for atrial fibrillation is granted.
Rationale
Private medical opinion found condition at least as likely as not related to service; Opinion was well-reasoned, detailed, and consistent with Veteran's history; Reasonable doubt resolved in Veteran's favor
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26035565 Decision Date: 04/16/26 Archive Date: 04/16/26 DOCKET NO. 210728-175187 DATE: April 16, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Veteran's atrial fibrillation is at least as likely as not related to his active-duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for atrial fibrillation are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1154(b), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1975 to September 2003 in the United States Navy. In the July 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on November 13, 2024. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. Entitlement to service connection for atrial fibrillation is granted. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for atrial fibrillation. The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence of record and finds the Veteran's atrial fibrillation is due to his active-duty service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In November 2024, the Veteran underwent a private assessment. He was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and sudden cardiac arrest. The physician reviewed the Veteran's entire claims file and pertinent recent medical literature. The physician opined that the Veteran's heart condition is at least as likely as not began during active service. The physician reasoned that the Veteran had decreased exercise tolerances during active service and underwent cardiology evaluation in 2001. The examiner found that the Veteran's exercise tolerances progressively declined since service leading to his atrial fibrillation in 2017. In this case, although there is a contrary opinion of record, the positive physician's opinion, as outlined above, evidences an awareness of the Veteran's medical history, provides a fully articulated opinion, and furnishes a reasoned analysis. The Board therefore attaches significant probative value to this opinion, as it is well reasoned, detailed, consistent with other evidence of record, and considers the history and nature of the Veteran's service and the claimed disability. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-49 (2000) (Factors for assessing the probative value of a medical opinion include the thoroughness and detail of the opinion). Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence shows that the Veteran's atrial fibrillation is the result of his active service. Accordingly, after resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for atrial fibrillation is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Costello, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303. after resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for atrial fibrillation is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Costello, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.