Skip to main content
128 verified sources — free, no sign-up

The research & law behind your claim

The nexus mills invent their citations. We never do — which is the one thing that lets us show you every one. Browse the real peer-reviewed studies and the controlling law behind VA claims, by condition and legal theory.

Medical evidence by condition

128 verified, peer-reviewed studies across 30 condition groups — each links out to its real PubMed or DOI record. These are the sources our nexus drafts draw from; nothing here is invented.

PTSD/combat-stress and deployment exposures associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease in service members and veterans.

Deployment-related traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic headache/migraine in service members and veterans.

Hazardous military noise exposure (weapons, aircraft, armor, blast) and noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss in service members.

Shoulder Impingement

38 CFR DC 5024, 5201, 5202, 5203

Repetitive overhead load, heavy lifting, and training/combat trauma driving rotator-cuff and shoulder instability injuries in service members.

Controlling law by theory

The CFR sections and published cases each theory of service connection actually rests on. This describes the legal standard raters evaluate against — it is never a prediction about any claim.

Regulation (CFR / USC)

  • 38 C.F.R. § 3.303

    Direct service connection — a current disability linked to service. (Continuity of symptomatology under § 3.303(b) is limited by case law to the § 3.309(a) chronic diseases — Walker.)

Case law

  • Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

    The three-element test: current disability, in-service event, and a nexus between them.

  • Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    Federal Circuit restatement of the same three direct-service-connection elements.

  • Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995)

    The evidentiary framework a rater weighs each element against.

  • Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

    Continuity of symptomatology (§ 3.303(b)) is available ONLY for a chronic disease listed in § 3.309(a); any other condition must use the medical-nexus pathway.

  • Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

    A categorical 'a medical opinion is always required for nexus' is legal error — competent lay evidence can suffice.

  • Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994)

    A veteran is competent to report symptoms they personally observe (Layno), and lay evidence can even establish a simple diagnosis in the right case (Jandreau).

  • McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006)

    A LOW threshold — evidence that merely indicates a nexus MAY exist obligates VA to provide a C&P exam.

  • 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990)

    When the evidence is in relative equipoise, the tie goes to the veteran — the preponderance must be AGAINST the claim to deny it.

How to read this

This is educational information about the evidentiary standards and medical literature relevant to VA disability claims — not legal or medical advice, and never a prediction about any claim or rating. Every study links to its PubMed or DOI record so you can verify it yourself; every legal authority is cited as it appears in filings. If you want a nexus opinion built to this standard for your own records, it's drafted from your file and routed to a licensed provider to review and sign.

Ready to build your documentation?

Generate and review your full document package free — grounded in these sources.

Generate your documentation — free