07-02 231

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedAugust 31, 2011
Docket07-02 231
StatusUnpublished

This text of 07-02 231 (07-02 231) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
07-02 231, (bva 2011).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1132113 Decision Date: 08/31/11 Archive Date: 09/07/11

DOCKET NO. 07-02 231 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boise, Idaho

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to rating higher than 40 percent for L5-S1 disc degeneration with spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis.

2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity before April 5, 2010, and a rating higher than 20 percent from April 5, 2010.

REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Mac, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran, who is the appellant, served on active duty from June 1976 to May 1980.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision, dated in September 2006, of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boise, Idaho.

A rating decision in March 2011 granted a rating of 20 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, effective April 5, 2010.

In November 2009, the Board remanded the issues for a VA examination, which the Veteran was afforded in April 2010. The Board also remanded the issue of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) for development under the duty to assist. Subsequently, the rating decision in March 2011 granted TDIU and this issue is not currently in appellate status. As the requested development has been completed, no further action to ensure compliance with the remand directive is required. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. L5-S1 disc degeneration with spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis is at most manifested by flexion to 10 degrees, extension at 5 degrees, bilateral lateral flexion at 5 degrees and bilateral lateral rotation at 10 degrees; there was no evidence of ankylosis or incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months period.

2. Before April 5, 2010, radiculopathy of the right lower extremity has been manifested by mild sensory impairment.

3. From April 5, 2010, radiculopathy of the right lower extremity has been manifested by moderate sensory impairment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for a rating higher than 40 percent for the service-connected L5-S1 disc degeneration with spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5242, 5243 (2010).

2. Before April 5, 2010 the criteria for a 10 percent rating for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity have been met; from April 5, 2010 the criteria for a rating higher than 20 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520 (2010).

The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA)

The VCAA, codified in part at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A, and implemented in part at 38 C.F.R § 3.159, amended VA's duties to notify and to assist a claimant in developing information and evidence necessary to substantiate a claim.

Duty to Notify

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b), when VA receives a complete or substantially complete application for benefits, it will notify the claimant of the following: (1) any information and medical or lay evidence that is necessary to substantiate the claim, (2) what portion of the information and evidence VA will obtain, and (3) what portion of the information and evidence the claimant is to provide.

Also, the VCAA notice requirements apply to all five elements of a service connection claim. The five elements are: (1) veteran status; (2) existence of a disability; (3) a connection between the veteran's service and the disability; (4) degree of disability; and (5) effective date of the disability. Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006).

In a claim for increase, the VCAA notice requirements are the type of evidence needed to substantiate the claim, namely, evidence demonstrating a worsening or increase in severity of the disability and the effect that worsening has on employment. Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (interpreting 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) as requiring generic claim-specific notice and rejecting veteran-specific notice as to effect on daily life and as to the assigned or a cross-referenced Diagnostic Code under which the disability is rated).

The VCAA notice must be provided to a claimant before the initial unfavorable adjudication by the RO. Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004).

The RO provided pre-adjudication VCAA notice by letter, dated in June 2006. The notice included the type of evidence needed to substantiate a claim for increase, namely, evidence that the disability had increased in severity and the effect that worsening has on employment.

Additionally, the Veteran was notified that VA would obtain VA records and records of other Federal agencies, and that he could submit other records not in the custody of a Federal agency, such as private medical records. The notice included the provisions for the effective date of a claim and for the degree of disability assignable.

As for the content and the timing of the VCAA notice, the document complied with the specificity requirements of Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002) (identifying evidence to substantiate a claim and the relative duties of VA and the claimant to obtain evidence); of Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002) (identifying the document that satisfies VCAA notice); of Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004) (pre-adjudication VCAA notice); of Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006) (notice of the elements of the claim); and of Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (evidence demonstrating a worsening or increase in severity of the disability and the effect that worsening has on employment).

Duty to Assist

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A, VA must make reasonable efforts to assist the claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. The RO has obtained VA records and private medical records.

The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in August 2006 and in April 2010. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). While the Veteran in October 2006 and in January 2007 questioned the adequacy of the VA examination in August 2006, noting that the examiner was hostile and did not adequately address range of motion testing, numbness and weakness, the Board finds that the examination is adequate as range of motion, numbness and weakness were addressed and muscle strength was tested. The VA examinations of record are adequate, as the reports provide sufficient detail to rate the service-connected disability.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki
580 F.3d 1270 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Quartuccio v. Principi
16 Vet. App. 183 (Veterans Claims, 2002)
Charles v. Principi
16 Vet. App. 370 (Veterans Claims, 2002)
Larry A. Pelegrini v. Anthony J. Principi
18 Vet. App. 112 (Veterans Claims, 2004)
Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson
19 Vet. App. 473 (Veterans Claims, 2006)
James P. Barr v. R. James Nicholson
21 Vet. App. 303 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Brian J. Hart v. Gordon H. Mansfield
21 Vet. App. 505 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Dennis M. Thun v. James B. Peake
22 Vet. App. 111 (Veterans Claims, 2008)
Schafrath v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 589 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
DeLuca v. Brown
8 Vet. App. 202 (Veterans Claims, 1995)
Stegall v. West
11 Vet. App. 268 (Veterans Claims, 1998)
Fenderson v. West
12 Vet. App. 119 (Veterans Claims, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
07-02 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/07-02-231-bva-2011.