07-18 18

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedJune 29, 2017
Docket07-18 18
StatusUnpublished

This text of 07-18 18 (07-18 18) 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
07-18 18, (bva 2017).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1725276 Decision Date: 06/29/17 Archive Date: 07/18/17

DOCKET NO. 07-18 18 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for intervertebral disc disease, status post laminectomy at L4-5 with bilateral foraminomoties at L4-5 and L5-S1 with radiculopathy, left lower extremity.

2. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent, and in excess of 20 percent from April 5, 2015 for lumbar radiculopathy of the right lower extremity.

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

E. Duthely, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1985 to September 1986.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from October 2006 and September 2015 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In January 2010, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. During the hearing, the undersigned engaged in a colloquy with the Veteran toward substantiation of the claim. See Bryant v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 488, 496-97 (2010). A transcript of the Board hearing is included in the electronic claims file.

The electronic record indicates that the AOJ is taking action on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to service-connected intervertebral disc disease. Although the matter is therefore within the Board's jurisdiction, it has not been certified for appellate review and the Board will not undertake review of the matter at this time. If the matter is not resolved in the Veteran's favor, the RO will certify the matter to the Board which will undertake appellate review of the RO's action. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999) (holding that the Board's jurisdiction is triggered by the timely filing of a notice of disagreement); 38 C.F.R. § 19.35 (stating that certification is for administrative purposes only and does not confer or deprive the Board of jurisdiction over an issue).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's intervertebral disc disease was manifested by subjective complaints of pain, but objectively, no evidence of ankylosis of the thoracolumbar spine or incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months.

2. From the period prior to April 4, 2015, the Veteran's right lower extremity radiculopathy presented with moderate symptoms of incomplete paralysis.

3. From the period beginning April 5, 2015, the Veteran's right lower extremity radiculopathy presented with severe symptoms of incomplete paralysis.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for intervertebral disc disease, status post laminectomy at L4-5 with bilateral foraminomoties at L4-5 and L5-S1 with radiculopathy, left lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.1 - 4.14, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5243 (2016).

2. Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for an initial disability rating of 20 percent, but no higher, for service-connected lumbar radiculopathy of the right lower extremity have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2016); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.7, 4.124a, Code 8620 (2016).

3. Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, for the period from April 5, 2015, the criteria for a disability rating of 30 percent, but no higher, for service-connected lumbar radiculopathy of the right lower extremity have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2016); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.7, 4.124a, Code 8620 (2016).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Duties to Notify and Assist

VA has satisfied its duties under the Veteran's Claims Assistance Act of 2000 to notify and assist. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2016). VA's duty to notify was satisfied by a March 2012 letter. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see also Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

VA's duty to assist includes helping claimants to obtain service treatment records and other pertinent records. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). The claims file contains the Veteran's service treatment and personnel records, and VA medical records. The Veteran has not identified any outstanding records needing to be obtained. The duty to obtain relevant records is satisfied. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c).

VA's duty to assist also includes providing a medical examination and/or obtaining a medical opinion when necessary to make a decision on the claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(c)(4), 3.326(a); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). The VA examination and/or opinion must be adequate to decide the claim. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). The April 2015 VA examiner performed an in-person examination and provided clear explanations in support of the opinions and findings. See Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 107 (2012) (holding that "examination reports are adequate when, as a whole, they sufficiently inform the Board of a medical expert's judgment on a medical question and the essential rationale for that opinion"). The VA examination and medical opinions are adequate to decide the Veteran's claim.

The claim was remanded in January 2011 in order to retrieve the Veteran's most recent treatment records, and to provide the Veteran with VA examinations to determine the current severity of his intervertebral disc disease and lumbar radiculopathy of the right lower extremity. The Veteran's records were retrieved and the Veteran was afforded an in-person examination in April 2015. Therefore, there is substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

VA has satisfied its duties to notify and assist. The Board may proceed with appellate review.

Increased Ratings

Disability ratings are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing the symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10.

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

Related

James P. Barr v. R. James Nicholson
21 Vet. App. 303 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Gary D. Bradley v. James B. Peake
22 Vet. App. 280 (Veterans Claims, 2008)
Walter A. Bryant v. Eric K. Shinseki
23 Vet. App. 488 (Veterans Claims, 2010)
Tyra K. Mitchell v. Eric K. Shinseki
25 Vet. App. 32 (Veterans Claims, 2011)
Joe L. Monzingo v. Eric K. Shinseki
26 Vet. App. 97 (Veterans Claims, 2012)
Scott v. McDonald
789 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Akles v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 118 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
Layno v. Brown
6 Vet. App. 465 (Veterans Claims, 1994)
DeLuca v. Brown
8 Vet. App. 202 (Veterans Claims, 1995)
Stegall v. West
11 Vet. App. 268 (Veterans Claims, 1998)
Manlincon v. West
12 Vet. App. 238 (Veterans Claims, 1999)
McLendon v. Nicholson
20 Vet. App. 79 (Veterans Claims, 2006)
Buie v. Shinseki
24 Vet. App. 242 (Veterans Claims, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
07-18 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/07-18-18-bva-2017.