12-10 801

Board of Veterans' Appeals·Decided April 26, 2018·No. 12-10 801·Unpublished

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1826240 Decision Date: 04/26/18 Archive Date: 05/07/18

DOCKET NO. 12-10 801 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to an increased rating for residuals of a thoracic spine fracture in excess of 40 percent.

2. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee chondromalacia patella.

REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by: Christopher Loiacono, Agent

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Shana Z. Siesser, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1991 to April 1994 and from May 1998 to August 1999.

This appeal initially came before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a December 2011 rating decision of the VA Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky.

The Veteran was afforded videoconference hearing on the instant issues in November 2014 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge sitting at Washington, DC. The transcript is of record.

These claims were previously before the Board in April 2015, at which time they were remanded for additional development.

Entitlement to a total disability rating for individual unemployability (TDIU) was granted in a January 2018 rating decision, effective March 2012. Therefore, it is no longer on appeal before the Board. The Veteran has requested a Travel Board hearing on the issue of an increased evaluation for his psychiatric disorder so that issue is not before the Board at this time.

This appeal was processed using the Virtual VA and Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) paperless claims processing systems. Accordingly, any future consideration of this appellant's case should take into consideration the existence of these electronic records.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. During the entire period on appeal, the evidence does not show the Veteran's thoracic spine disorder caused incapacitating episodes or unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine.

2. The Veteran's left knee disorder is manifested by noncompensable limitation of motion due to pain, without objective evidence of locking or instability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for a rating in excess of 40 percent for a thoracic spine disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.321, 4.1-4.14, 4.40-4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5238-5237, 5243 (2017).

2. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5003, 5257, 5258, 5260, 5261 (2017).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA)

As provided for by the VCAA, VA has a duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2017). As service connection, an initial rating, and an effective date have been assigned for the disabilities considered above, the notice requirements of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) have been met in this instance.

The Veteran has been provided satisfactory and timely VCAA notice in advance of the rating decision on appeal. VA's duty to assist has been fulfilled through obtaining medical records, along with adequate VA examinations. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing, during which he received proper assistance in developing the claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103.

The RO has complied with the Board remand directives. The Board finds that the necessary development has been accomplished and that appellate review may proceed without prejudice to the appellant. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993). For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that the evidence of record is adequate to adjudicate the claims on appeal.

Law and analysis - Increased rating claims

Disability evaluations 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 his symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Schedule). 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

Separate diagnostic codes identify various disabilities and the criteria for specific ratings. Relevant regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Schedule; however, findings sufficient to identify the disease and the resulting disability and, above all, coordination of the rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21.

Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). A claimant, however, may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability, resulting in different levels of compensation, from the time the increased rating claim is filed to the time a final decision is made. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 510 (2007). Staged ratings are appropriate when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Id.

If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining will be resolved in favor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

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. Functional loss may be due to the absence or deformity of structures or other pathology, or it may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior in undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part that becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40.

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

12-10 801, (bva 2018).

12-10 801 (12-10 801) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brian J. Hart v. Gordon H. Mansfield
21 Vet. App. 505 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Tyra K. Mitchell v. Eric K. Shinseki
25 Vet. App. 32 (Veterans Claims, 2011)
Moore v. Derwinski
2 Vet. App. 209 (Veterans Claims, 1992)
Bernard v. Brown
4 Vet. App. 384 (Veterans Claims, 1993)
Francisco v. Brown
7 Vet. App. 55 (Veterans Claims, 1994)