indicate that “all types of sarcoido-sis necessarily have a quick and rapid onset of severe symptomatology.” Id. at *3. Mr. Mathis argued that the report contained inadequate analysis, but the Veterans Court explained that “there is no reasons or bases requirement imposed on [an] examiner.” Id. at *2 (quoting Acevedo v. Shinseki 25 Vet.App. 286, 293 (2012)). Similarly, while Mr. Mathis complained that the examiner cited no medical authorities, the Veterans Court explained that an examiner is presumed to know about medical authorities under the .presumption of competence: The presumption that VA medical examiners are competent “includes a presumption that physicians remain up-to-date on medical knowledge and current medical studies.” Monzingo v. Shinseki 26 Vet.App. 97, 106-07 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Id. at *3. Mr. Mathis also objected to the
holding that the mere fact that an examiner did not cite any studies is not evidence that he is unaware of such studies and is not a basis for finding an examination report inadequate holding that an examiner is not estopped from rejecting a divisional application because of an earlier requirement for division holding that it is not holding that dui is not such an offense holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury