11-18 109

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedSeptember 27, 2017
Docket11-18 109
StatusUnpublished

This text of 11-18 109 (11-18 109) 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
11-18 109, (bva 2017).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1744033 Decision Date: 09/27/17 Archive Date: 10/10/17

DOCKET NO. 11-18 109 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to an extraschedular rating for right ring finger injury residuals.

2. Entitlement to a separate rating for right hand manifestations associated with right ring finger injury residuals.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. B. Yantz, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from January 1979 to August 1985.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2009 rating decision of the Atlanta, Georgia Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Veteran was scheduled to present testimony at a Travel Board hearing in February 2015, but he failed to report to that hearing. Because the record does not contain further explanation as to why he failed to report to the hearing, or a request to reschedule the hearing, the Board deems his request for such a hearing to be withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (2016).

After remanding the case in April 2015, the Board issued a decision in November 2015 (by a Veterans Law Judge other than the undersigned) that denied the matter of an initial compensable schedular rating for right ring finger injury residuals (under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Codes 5227 and 5230), and remanded the matter of an extraschedular rating for right ring finger injury residuals (under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1)) for further development. Consequently, the matter of the schedular rating for right ring finger injury residuals is not before the Board.

The case has now been assigned to the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. In evaluating the evidence of record in the light most favorable to the Veteran's case, the Board has added the issue of entitlement to a separate rating for right hand manifestations associated with right ring finger injury residuals to the current appeal, as reflected on the title page.

Because further development is necessary to consider a rating higher than the 10 percent rating currently being assigned for right hand manifestations associated with the Veteran's right ring finger injury residuals, that issue is being REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). VA will notify the Veteran if action on his part is required.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The functional effects of the Veteran's service-connected right ring finger residuals on his right ring finger alone have been adequately contemplated by the schedular rating criteria, and therefore the evidence does not present such an exceptional disability picture that the available schedular ratings for such disability are inadequate.

2. Throughout the entire appeal period, and after resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the functional effects of his service-connected right ring finger residuals on his right hand as a whole are shown to have resulted in impairment of the intrinsic muscles of his right hand, producing limitation of motion of his right hand.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. An extraschedular rating for the Veteran's service-connected right ring finger injury residuals is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(b)(1), 4.71a, Codes 5227, 5230 (2016).

2. For the entire appeal period, a separate rating of at least 10 percent for right hand manifestations associated with right ring finger injury residuals is warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.73, Code 5309 (2016).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA)

The VCAA, in part, describes VA's duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a). The VCAA applies to the instant matters.

VA's duty to notify was satisfied by letters in July 2008 and July 2009. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2016); see also Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

The Veteran's pertinent treatment records have been obtained. The Veteran underwent VA hand and finger examinations in March 2011 and January 2015. The Board finds that the reports of these VA examinations contain sufficient specific clinical findings and informed discussion of the history and features of (as well as functional impairment due to) the Veteran's right ring finger disability to constitute probative medical evidence adequate for rating purposes. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007).

All of the relevant development requested by the Board's April 2015 and November 2015 remands was completed (to include obtaining an opinion from the Director of Compensation Service addressing consideration of an extraschedular rating for the Veteran's right ring finger disability). See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

The Board finds that the record as it stands includes adequate competent evidence to allow the Board to decide the matters of entitlement to an extraschedular rating for right ring finger injury residuals and entitlement to a separate rating for right hand manifestations associated with right ring finger injury residuals, and that no further development of the evidentiary record in these matters is necessary. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The Veteran has not identified any pertinent evidence that remains outstanding. VA's duty to assist is met.

Legal Criteria, Factual Background, and Analysis

The Board notes that it has reviewed all of the evidence in the record, with an emphasis on the evidence relevant to this appeal. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting its decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence of record. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Hence, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence as appropriate, and the Board's analysis will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as to the matters being decided.

The Board is grateful to the Veteran for his honorable service.

Extraschedular Rating for Right Ring Finger Injury Residuals

The Court has clarified that there is a three-step inquiry for determining whether a Veteran is entitled to an extraschedular rating. Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111, 115 (2008). Initially, the Board must determine whether the evidence presents such an exceptional disability picture that the available schedular ratings for the service-connected disability are inadequate. See Yancy v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 484 (2016); Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App.

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

Related

Lawrence M. Tropf v. R. James Nicholson
20 Vet. App. 317 (Veterans Claims, 2006)
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)
Johnson v. McDonald
762 F.3d 1362 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Scott v. McDonald
789 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Jose v. Kuppamala v. Robert A. McDonald
27 Vet. App. 447 (Veterans Claims, 2015)
William R. Sowers v. Robert A. McDonald
27 Vet. App. 472 (Veterans Claims, 2016)
Nathan Yancy v. Robert A. McDonald
27 Vet. App. 484 (Veterans Claims, 2016)
Esteban v. Brown
6 Vet. App. 259 (Veterans Claims, 1994)
DeLuca v. Brown
8 Vet. App. 202 (Veterans Claims, 1995)
Floyd v. Brown
9 Vet. App. 88 (Veterans Claims, 1996)
Gonzales v. West
218 F.3d 1378 (Federal Circuit, 2000)
Stegall v. West
11 Vet. App. 268 (Veterans Claims, 1998)
Kutscherousky v. West
12 Vet. App. 369 (Veterans Claims, 1999)
Doucette v. Shulkin
28 Vet. App. 366 (Veterans Claims, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11-18 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/11-18-109-bva-2017.