11-05 269

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedJanuary 31, 2018
Docket11-05 269
StatusUnpublished

This text of 11-05 269 (11-05 269) 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
11-05 269, (bva 2018).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1806324 Decision Date: 01/31/18 Archive Date: 02/07/18

DOCKET NO. 11-05 269 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Lincoln, Nebraska

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for history of degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with surgical repair of herniated discs three times, initially evaluated as 10 percent disabling prior to January 13, 2017, and 20 percent disabling thereafter.

REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by: Molly Steinkemper, Attorney

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

B.A. Evans, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active peacetime duty from May 1986 to August 1989.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Lincoln, Nebraska.

This case was previously before the Board in November 2016, at which time the issue currently on appeal was remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action During the pendency of the appeal, in march 2017, the RO increased the disability rating to 20 percent from January 13, 2017. Because the RO did not assign the maximum disability rating possible, the appeals for higher disability evaluations remain before the Board. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Prior to January 13, 2017, the Veteran's degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with surgical repair of herniated discs three times was not manifested by forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees, but not greater than 60 degrees; a combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis.

2. Beginning January 13, 2017, the Veteran's degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with surgical repair of herniated discs three times was not manifested by forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine limited to 30 degrees or less, or favorable ankylosis of the entire spine.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Prior to January 13, 2017, the criteria for an initial rating for degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with surgical repair of herniated discs three times prior in excess of 10 percent were not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5237 (2017).

2. Beginning January 13, 2017, the criteria for a rating for degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine with surgical repair of herniated discs three times in excess of 20 percent have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5237 (2017).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Legal Criteria

Disability ratings are determined by the application of the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (2017). The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during service and their residual conditions in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1 (2017).

It is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified. Findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom are sufficient. A coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2017).

Where there is a question as to which of two ratings shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2017).

In every instance where the minimum schedular rating requires residuals and the schedule does not provide for a 0 percent rating, a 0 percent rating will be assigned when the required symptomatology is not shown. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 (2017).

The rating of the same disability under various diagnoses is to be avoided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (2017). However, that does not preclude the assignment of separate ratings for separate and distinct symptomatology where none of the symptomatology justifying a rating under one diagnostic code is duplicative of or overlapping with the symptomatology justifying a rating under another diagnostic code. Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259 (1994).

Rating a service-connected disability involving a joint rated on limitation of motion requires adequate consideration of functional loss due to pain and functional loss due to weakness, fatigability, incoordination, or pain on movement of a joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 (2017); DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995).

A VA examination of the joints must, wherever possible, include the results of the range of motion testing described in the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, which directs that the joints involved should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint. Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158, 168 (2016).

Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or infection in parts of the system, to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance. It is essential that the examination on which ratings are based adequately portrays the anatomical damage, and the functional loss, with respect to these elements. In addition, the regulations state that the functional loss may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior of the veteran undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 (2017).

When rating joints, inquiry will be directed as to whether there is less movement than normal, more movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 (2017).

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

Related

Gilbert v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 49 (Veterans Claims, 1990)
Schafrath v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 589 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
AB v. Brown
6 Vet. App. 35 (Veterans Claims, 1993)
Esteban v. Brown
6 Vet. App. 259 (Veterans Claims, 1994)
DeLuca v. Brown
8 Vet. App. 202 (Veterans Claims, 1995)
Alemany v. Brown
9 Vet. App. 518 (Veterans Claims, 1996)
Correia v. McDonald
28 Vet. App. 158 (Veterans Claims, 2016)
Doucette v. Shulkin
28 Vet. App. 366 (Veterans Claims, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11-05 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/11-05-269-bva-2018.