12-34 882

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedApril 30, 2015
Docket12-34 882
StatusUnpublished

This text of 12-34 882 (12-34 882) 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
12-34 882, (bva 2015).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 1518727 Decision Date: 04/30/15 Archive Date: 05/05/15

DOCKET NO. 12-34 882 ) DATE ) )

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with surgical scar.

2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy.

REPRESENTATION

Veteran is represented by: Antonio Tejeda, Attorney

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C. Banister, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1972 to July 1975. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota.

The Veteran testified at an August 2014 hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file.

In a January 2015 remand, the Board found that the evidence of record raised the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for left lower extremity radiculopathy. To date, the record does not show that the RO has undertaken any development or adjudication of this claim. As such, the Board is again referring it to the RO for appropriate action.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. For the period prior to May 13, 2011, the Veteran's service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine was manifested by pain, tenderness, stiffness, and forward flexion limited to less than 30 degrees.

2. For the period beginning May 13, 2011, the Veteran's service-connected degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine was manifested by pain, tenderness, stiffness, and forward flexion greater than 30 degrees.

3. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's service-connected scar was manifested by one well-healed, linear, surgical scar measuring approximately 19.5 centimeters, which was neither painful nor unstable and caused no functional limitations.

4. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's right lower extremity radiculopathy was manifested by right lower extremity pain radiating through the hip, buttock, thigh, and knee with occasional stiffness, weakness, numbness, and dysesthesia, all of which was not relieved by surgery and only temporarily alleviated by epidural steroid injections.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Prior to May 13, 2011, the criteria for a rating of 40 percent for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5003-5237 (2014).

2. Beginning Mary 13, 2011, the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 50035237 (2014).

3. The criteria for a compensable initial rating for a surgical scar have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 4.118 Diagnostic Code 7804 (2014).

4. The criteria for an initial rating of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520 (2014).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

VA has a duty to notify and assist veterans in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2014).

Proper notice from VA must inform the veteran of any information and medical or lay evidence not of record (1) that is necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) that VA will seek to provide; and (3) that the veteran is expected to provide. Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). This notice must be provided prior to an initial unfavorable decision on a claim by the RO. Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112, 120 (2004).

With regard to the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with surgical scar, the RO's June 2010 letter contained the requisite notice. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1); Quartuccio, 16 Vet. App. at 187; Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006); Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1270, 1275-82 (2009). With regard to the Veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy, service connection was granted in an August 2010 rating decision, and therefore, that claim is now substantiated. The Veteran's filing of a notice of disagreement does not trigger additional notice obligations under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a). 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(3). Rather, the Veteran's appeal as to the initial rating assigned triggers VA's statutory duties under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5104 and 7105 and regulatory duties under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. The August 2012 statement of the case set forth the relevant diagnostic codes for rating the disability at issue and included a description of the rating criteria for the current evaluation and for all higher evaluations. The Veteran was, thus, informed of what was needed not only to achieve the next higher schedular rating, but also to obtain all schedular ratings above that already assigned. Therefore, the Veteran has been informed of what is necessary to achieve a higher rating for his service-connected right lower extremity radiculopathy. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993).

The duty to assist the Veteran has also been satisfied. The RO obtained all VA treatment records identified by the Veteran. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. In January 2015, the Board remanded the above-captioned claims and directed the RO to obtain all of the Veteran's outstanding VA treatment records relevant to the issues on appeal, including records from the Minneapolis VA Health Care System dated February 2013 through the present. While in remand status, the RO obtained the VA treatment records identified by the Board and, therefore, substantially complied with the January 2015 remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Furthermore, there is no indication in the record that additional evidence relevant to the issue being decided herein is available and not part of the record. See Pelegrini, 18 Vet. App. at 116.

The Veteran was provided VA examinations in June 2010, August 2010, May 2011, June 2012, and July 2014.

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

Related

Shinseki, Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Sanders
556 U.S. 396 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki
580 F.3d 1270 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Thun v. Shinseki
572 F.3d 1366 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Mayfield v. Nicholson
444 F.3d 1328 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Quartuccio v. Principi
16 Vet. App. 183 (Veterans Claims, 2002)
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)
James P. Barr v. R. James Nicholson
21 Vet. App. 303 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Brian J. Hart v. Gordon H. Mansfield
21 Vet. App. 505 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Dennis M. Thun v. James B. Peake
22 Vet. App. 111 (Veterans Claims, 2008)
Sterling T. Rice v. Eric K. Shinseki
22 Vet. App. 447 (Veterans Claims, 2009)
Tyra K. Mitchell v. Eric K. Shinseki
25 Vet. App. 32 (Veterans Claims, 2011)
Robertson v. Gibson
759 F.3d 1351 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Gilbert v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 49 (Veterans Claims, 1990)
Fisher v. Principi
4 Vet. App. 57 (Veterans Claims, 1993)
Bernard v. Brown
4 Vet. App. 384 (Veterans Claims, 1993)
Esteban v. Brown
6 Vet. App. 259 (Veterans Claims, 1994)
DeLuca v. Brown
8 Vet. App. 202 (Veterans Claims, 1995)
Mittleider v. West
11 Vet. App. 181 (Veterans Claims, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12-34 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/12-34-882-bva-2015.