10-21 896

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedFebruary 29, 2016
Docket10-21 896
StatusUnpublished

This text of 10-21 896 (10-21 896) 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
10-21 896, (bva 2016).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1607922 Decision Date: 02/29/16 Archive Date: 03/04/16

DOCKET NO. 10-21 896 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to an initial disability evaluation in excess of 40 percent for status post lumbar fusion L3-5, with degenerative changes of the thoracic spine.

2. Entitlement to an initial disability evaluation in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy.

REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Jessica O'Connell, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1977 to August 1977, and January 1988 to December 2007. This matter comes properly before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2008 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Jurisdiction is now with the VA RO in Roanoke, Virginia.

In January 2016, the Veteran filed two separate fully developed claims, one for an increased rating for his cervical spine disorder, to include a temporary total evaluation, and another for an increased rating for his service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These issues have not yet been adjudicated by the RO; therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over them, and they are referred to the RO for appropriate action. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(b) (2015).

Additionally, in support of his claim for an increased rating for PTSD, the Veteran submitted Tricare records dated June 19, 2014, which were annotated with his notes. On the top of the medical report, the Veteran wrote "TBI" and the body of the report reflects the Veteran sought treatment and told the doctor that he experienced two concussions, one in 1993 and one in 2005, and wondered if a traumatic brain injury (TBI) could be the cause of his sleep disturbance and mild intermittent memory issues. It is unclear if the Veteran wishes to file a claim for residuals of a TBI, and therefore, on remand the RO must contact the Veteran to determine if he is making a claim. If so, the RO must adjudicate this claim in the first instance. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(b).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Throughout the appeal period, the objective medical evidence of record demonstrates the Veteran's back disability was manifested by, at worst, forward flexion to 30 degrees; pain, which increased with use; muscle spasms; and localized tenderness to palpation; there was no evidence of unfavorable ankylosis.

2. Prior to August 13, 2012, the Veteran's left lower extremity radiculopathy was manifested by wholly sensory symptoms, to include numbness and pain.

3. Beginning August 13, 2012, the Veteran's left lower extremity radiculopathy was manifested by, at worst, slight muscular atrophy and a left foot drop; there was no evidence of marked muscular atrophy or complete neuralgia resulting in no active movement of the muscles below the knee.

4. The evidence shows right lower extremity radiculopathy due to the Veteran's service-connected status post lumbar fusion L3-5, with degenerative changes of the thoracic spine.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Throughout the appeal period, the criteria for a disability evaluation in excess of 40 percent for status post lumbar fusion L3-5, with degenerative changes of the thoracic spine, have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5242-5237 (2015).

2. Prior to August 13, 2012, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8720 (2015).

3. Beginning August 13, 2012, the criteria for a disability rating of 40 percent, but no more, for left lower extremity radiculopathy have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8720 (2015).

4. The criteria for a separate compensable evaluation for right lower extremity radiculopathy have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5242-5237 Note (1), 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8720 (2015).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

With respect to the Veteran's claims herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. See 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 (2014).

The Veteran's increased rating claims arise from his disagreement with the initial evaluation assigned following the grant of service connection. Once service connection is granted, the claim is substantiated, additional notice is not required, and any defect in the notice is not prejudicial. Hartman v. Nicholson, 483 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Dunlap v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 112 (2007). Therefore, no further notice is needed.

The duty to assist the Veteran has been satisfied in this case. The RO has obtained the Veteran's service treatment records and his identified VA and private treatment records. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Moreover, the Veteran has been afforded VA examinations that are adequate for rating purposes. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Specifically, the October 2007, November 2007, December 2009, August 2012, May 2013, and November 2015 VA examiners took into account the Veteran's statements and treatment records, which allowed for fully-informed evaluations of the claimed disability. Id. The Veteran also testified before the Board in a March 2015 hearing.

The Veteran's claim was remanded in June 2015 to contact the Veteran to determine if he had additional evidence to provide in support of his claim, to obtain the Veteran's Tricare medical records from February 2012 to the present, and to associate his August 2012 VA spine examination report with the evidence of record.

The August 2012 VA spine examination report has been associated with the electronic evidence of record. Further, the RO called Tricare to obtain the Veteran's outstanding records and was informed that an authorization from the Veteran was required. The RO sent an October 2015 letter to the Veteran requesting that he complete and return an authorization to allow VA to obtain his Tricare records; the Veteran did not complete and return that authorization, and therefore, the RO was unable to obtain the outstanding records. The June 2015 Board remand directives also instructed the RO to ensure that the Veteran was provided with a VA examination to assess the severity of his back disorder and associated neurological manifestations, and the Veteran underwent a VA examination in November 2015.

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

Related

Thun v. Shinseki
572 F.3d 1366 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Hartman v. Nicholson
483 F.3d 1311 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
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)
Lizzie K. Mayfield v. R. James Nicholson
20 Vet. App. 537 (Veterans Claims, 2006)
Dale O. Dunlap v. R. James Nicholson
21 Vet. App. 112 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
James P. Barr v. R. James Nicholson
21 Vet. App. 303 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Dennis M. Thun v. James B. Peake
22 Vet. App. 111 (Veterans Claims, 2008)
Gilbert v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 49 (Veterans Claims, 1990)
Wood v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 190 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
Fisher v. Principi
4 Vet. App. 57 (Veterans Claims, 1993)
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)
10-21 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/10-21-896-bva-2016.