Walker v. Shinseki
708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied June 21, 2013. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2011-7184, Circuit Judge Clevenger. Precedential. Veterans Court affirmed.
This is the one on this list that narrowed what veterans can do. It is here because a claim built on the wrong theory fails slowly and expensively, and because it is the reason several older Veterans Court decisions can no longer be relied on.
What it holds
38 C.F.R. §3.303(b) offers a route to service connection that does not require a nexus opinion: show the chronic disease in service and then again later, or show continuity of symptomatology since service. The Federal Circuit held that route is available only for the chronic diseases actually enumerated in §3.309(a).
Not diseases that are chronic in a medical sense. Not diseases a doctor would call chronic without hesitating. Only the ones on the list.
The court also disowned its own earlier dictum pointing the other way, and then swept up the Veterans Court decisions that had followed it: "the decisions of the Veterans Court that have extended continuity of symptomatology under §3.303(b) to chronic diseases not enumerated in §3.309(a) are hereby abrogated." It named two by way of example — a psoriasis claim in Kent v. Nicholson and a varicose veins claim in Barr v. Nicholson.
What it leaves open, which is almost everything
A disease that is medically chronic but unlisted is not out of luck. The court said so directly: such conditions "may qualify for service connection under the three-element test for disability compensation" under §3.303(a) — a current disability, an in-service event, and a connection between them.
What changes is the evidence the claim needs. The §3.303(b) route lets symptoms over time do the work. The ordinary route usually needs a reasoned medical opinion. A claim filed on the first theory for a condition that only qualifies under the second does not get corrected by VA; it gets denied for want of a nexus.
So the practical question is narrow and answerable: is the condition on the §3.309(a) list? Read the list. It is short, it is specific, and it is not a list of everything doctors call chronic.
Finding the opinion
The Federal Circuit's official PDF: 2011-7184.opinion.2-20-2013.1.pdf. Published at 708 F.3d 1331.
Educational summary. The decision addressed the facts and issues identified above; its outcome does not predict another claim. Check its precedential status and subsequent history before relying on it.
Reviewed October 6, 2026