15-21 511

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedSeptember 18, 2019
Docket15-21 511
StatusUnpublished

This text of 15-21 511 (15-21 511) 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
15-21 511, (bva 2019).

Opinion

Citation Nr: 19172647 Decision Date: 09/18/19 Archive Date: 09/18/19

DOCKET NO. 15-21 511 DATE: September 18, 2019

ORDER

Entitlement to a rating of 20 percent, and no greater, for radiculopathy in the left lower extremity prior to March 6, 2018, is granted.

Entitlement to a rating greater than 20 percent for radiculopathy in the left lower extremity beginning March 6, 2018, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Prior to March 6, 2018, the Veteran’s radiculopathy in the left lower extremity was manifested by moderate incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve.

2. Beginning March 6, 2018, the Veteran’s radiculopathy in the left lower extremity is manifested by moderate incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Prior to March 6, 2018, the criteria for a rating of 20 percent for radiculopathy in the left lower extremity have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.124a (Diagnostic Code 8520) (2018).

2. Beginning March 6, 2018, the criteria for a rating greater than 20 percent for radiculopathy in the left lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.124a (Diagnostic Code 8520) (2018).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active military service from February 2008 to June 2011.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the March 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York, in which service connection for radiculopathy in the left lower extremity was granted and evaluated as 10 percent disabling with an effective date of January 4, 2013.

This matter was previously before the Board in July 2018 and was remanded for further development. Specifically, this matter was remanded for the issuance of a Supplemental Statemen of the Case, which occurred in July 2019. The Board therefore finds that there was substantial compliance with the prior remand order and the Board may continue with its determination. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (2017). The Rating Schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The Board will consider entitlement to staged ratings to compensate for times since filing the claim when the disability may have been more severe than at other times during the course of the claim on appeal. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 199 (1999).

VA should interpret reports of examination in light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability shall be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations apply, the higher of the two should be assigned where the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2017).

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher rating because for his radiculopathy in his left lower extremity.

Paralysis of the sciatic nerve is evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. (Neuritis and neuralgia of that group are evaluated under Diagnostic Codes 8620 and 8720.). Under these criteria, mild incomplete paralysis is rated as 10 percent disabling. Moderate incomplete paralysis is rated as 20 percent disabling. Moderately severe incomplete paralysis is rated as 40 percent disabling. Severe incomplete paralysis, with marked muscular atrophy is rated as 60 percent disabling. Complete paralysis, with the foot dangles and drops, no active movement possible of muscles below the knee, flexion of knee weakened or (very rarely) lost is rated as 80 percent disabling. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a.

The words “mild,” “moderate,” and “severe” as used in the various Diagnostic Codes are not defined in the Rating Schedule. Regulations provide that ratings for peripheral neurological disorders are to be assigned based the relative impairment of motor function, trophic changes, or sensory disturbance. 38 C.F.R. § 4.120. Consideration is also given for loss of reflexes, pain, and muscle atrophy. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.123, 4.124.

The term “incomplete paralysis” indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type picture for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating is for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree. The disability ratings for the peripheral nerves are for unilateral involvement; when bilateral, the ratings combine with application of the bilateral factor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Note at “Diseases of the Peripheral Nerves.” The Note to 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a establishes a maximum disability rating for conditions that are wholly sensory, as opposed to a minimum disability rating for conditions that are more than wholly sensory. See Miller v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 376 (2017).

The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file, with an emphasis on the medical and lay evidence for the issue on appeal. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence of record. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has held that the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence. Gonzalez v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

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

Related

Gonzales v. West
218 F.3d 1378 (Federal Circuit, 2000)
Stegall v. West
11 Vet. App. 268 (Veterans Claims, 1998)
Arms v. West
12 Vet. App. 188 (Veterans Claims, 1999)
Miller v. Shulkin
28 Vet. App. 376 (Veterans Claims, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15-21 511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/15-21-511-bva-2019.