The Clemons case was summarized in an earlier lesson. This case has implications for determining the scope of the examination, which could change as you gather more information from the Veteran. The following in-depth discussion of the case will help your understanding of the video that comes next.

The VSR or RVSR requesting a C&P examination is obligated to address the Veteran's contentions and to broadly interpret those contentions. As the Court held in the Clemons v. Shinseki case, VA cannot expect the Veteran to articulate with medical precision an exact description or diagnosis for the clinical condition.

The reason for this requirement is that, as held by the courts in the Clemons case, a Veteran or Servicemember generally is not qualified to diagnose his or her condition but is qualified to identify and explain the symptoms that he or she observes and experiences. VA cannot limit the scope of the claim only to the condition as it was identified by the Veteran. Therefore, the examiner should consider the presence of other conditions that could reasonably encompass the symptoms described by the Veteran, and the information the Veteran submits or that VA obtains in support of the claim.

A C&P examiner draws on several sources of evidence to evaluate a condition:

• Lay diagnosis: what the Veteran calls the claimed disorder
• Symptoms: symptoms the Veteran describes
• Medications: medications the Veteran is using
• Diagnostic studies: previous and current diagnostic studies for the Veteran
• Information: information the Veteran submits or that VA obtains in support of the claim

If an examiner determines that an actual condition is different than the claimed condition but clinically in the realm of the symptoms described by the Veteran, the examiner must evaluate the actual condition using both the requested documentation protocol and the appropriate documentation protocol. Moreover, the examiner must explain the change to VBA in his or her documentation.