Citation Nr: 18160682
Decision Date: 12/27/18	Archive Date: 12/27/18

DOCKET NO. 09-44 643
DATE:	December 27, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right knee degenerative arthritis from February 7, 2007 to April 9, 2007 is denied.
Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for right knee degenerative arthritis since June 1, 2007 is denied.
Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for post-operative residuals of right knee arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies since February 7, 2007 under Diagnostic Code 5259 is denied.
Entitlement to a separate 20 percent rating for post-operative residuals of right knee arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies since February 7, 2007 under Diagnostic Code 5258 is granted subject to the laws and regulations governing the award of monetary benefits.
Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is denied.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. From February 7, 2007 to April 9, 2007, the Veteran’s right knee degenerative arthritis was not manifested by flexion limited to 15 degrees or extension limited to 20 degrees; there was no objective evidence of severe recurrent subluxation or lateral instability; no evidence of ankylosis; and no evidence of fibula or tibia malunion with marked knee disability.
2. Since June 1, 2007, the Veteran’s right knee degenerative arthritis was not manifested by flexion limited to 15 degrees or extension limited to 20 degrees; there was no objective evidence of severe recurrent subluxation or lateral instability; no evidence of ankylosis; and no evidence of fibula or tibia malunion with marked knee disability.
3.  Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, since February 7, 2007, the competent medical evidence shows that postoperative residuals of arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies were manifested by frequent episodes of locking and effusion.
4. For the period on appeal, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities did not meet the schedular criteria for total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service connected disorders, and his service-connected disabilities were not of such severity as to preclude his participation in any substantially gainful employment.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. For the period from February 7 to April 9, 2007 and since June 1, 2007, the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for right knee degenerative arthritis have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.10, 4.14, 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5260, 5261. 
2. For the period since February 7, 2007, the criteria for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for post-operative residuals of right knee arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies under Diagnostic Code 5259 have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.10, 4.14, 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5259.
3. For the period since February 7, 2007, the criteria for entitlement to a 20 percent rating for post-operative residuals of right knee arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies under Diagnostic Code 5258 have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.10, 4.14, 4.40, 4.45, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5259.
4. The criteria for a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.340, 3.341, 4.15, 4.16, 4.18, 4.25.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Veteran served on active duty from July 1975 to June 1979.
The Veteran testified at August 2013 videoconference hearing before the
undersigned.  Thereafter, the Board remanded the case in January 2014 for further development. 

In its February 2016 decision, the Board granted entitlement to a separate 10
percent rating, but no higher, for post-operative residuals of partial meniscectomies
under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5259.  The
Board denied entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee degenerative arthritis with post-operative residuals of arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies prior to March 27, 2014. The appellant appealed those decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).

In the February 2016 decision the Board remanded the issue of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee degenerative arthritis with post- operative residuals of arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies since March 27, 2014 for further development.

In a March 2017 Order, the Court granted a February 2017 joint motion for partial
remand, and vacated the Board’s February 2016 decision, to the extent it declined to award a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee degenerative arthritis with post-operative residuals of arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies prior to March 27, 2014, and to the extent that it declined to assign a separate rating for instability.

In June and August 2017, the Board remanded the issues of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee degenerative arthritis with post-operative residuals of arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies prior to and since March 27, 2014; and entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for post-operative residuals of right knee arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies since February 7, 2007.  

The appeal is once again before the Board for adjudication.
Increased Rating
Preliminarily, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the remand directives embodied in its August 2017 decision.
Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity.  Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes.    38 U.S.C. 1155; 38 C.F.R. 4.1.  If two evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. 4.7.
When, as here, the Veteran is requesting a higher rating for an already established service-connected disability, the present disability level is the primary concern and past medical reports do not take precedence over current findings.  See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994).  However, “staged” ratings are appropriate for an increased rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings.  Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).
Except for a temporary 100-percent evaluation based on a need for convalescence assigned from April 10, 2007 to May 31, 2007, following arthroscopic examination and partial meniscectomies, under 38 C.F.R. 4.30, the Veteran’s right knee degenerative arthritis with post-operative residuals of arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies has been rated as 20 percent disabling pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 4.71a.  At times this has been rated under Diagnostic Codes 5010 (traumatic arthritis) and 5260 (limitation of flexion), and at other times under Diagnostic Codes 5003 (degenerative arthritis) and 5258 (dislocated semilunar cartilage).
Diagnostic Code 5010 provides that traumatic arthritis will be rated as degenerative arthritis under Diagnostic Code 5003.  See 38 C.F.R. 4.71a.  Under Diagnostic Code 5003, degenerative arthritis, when established by x-ray findings, will be rated on the basis of limitation of motion under the appropriate Diagnostic Codes for the specific joint or joints involved.  When limitation of motion of the specific joint or joints involved is noncompensable under the appropriate Diagnostic Codes, a rating of 10 percent is for application for each such major joint affected by limitation of motion to be combined, not added under Diagnostic Code 5003.  Limitation of motion must be objectively confirmed by findings such as swelling, muscle spasm or satisfactory evidence of painful motion. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 la, Diagnostic Code 5003.
The normal (full) range of motion of the knee is from 0 degrees of extension to 140 degrees of flexion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate II.
Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 1a, Diagnostic Code 5260, which pertains to limitation of flexion of the knee, a 10 percent evaluation is assigned where flexion is limited to 45 degrees; a 20 percent rating is assigned where flexion is limited to 30 degrees, and a 30 percent evaluation is assigned when flexion is limited to 15 degrees.
Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 1a, Diagnostic Code 5261, which pertains to limitation of extension of the knee, a 10 percent evaluation is assigned for extension that is limited to 10 degrees, a 20 percent evaluation is assigned for extension that is limited to 15 degrees and a 30 percent evaluation is assigned for extension that is limited to 20 degrees.
The record shows that in a December 1979 rating decision the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right knee injury, and assigned a noncompensable rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5257.  That rating was increased to 10 percent under that Diagnostic Code in a March 1995 rating decision.  
In a June 2007 rating decision the appellant’s right knee disorder was reclassified as right knee degenerative arthritis with post-operative residuals of arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies, however, the Diagnostic Code was changed to 5010-5260.  The assigned rating remained 10 percent.  
In a September 2008 rating decision the appellant was assigned a temporary total disability rating from April 10, 2007 to May 31, 2007.  The 10 percent rating was restored effective June 1, 2007.  
Following the Board’s February 2016 decision the Veteran was assigned a separate 10 percent rating for postoperative residuals of right knee arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies under Diagnostic Code 5259 (symptomatic removal of the semilunar cartilage).  The 10 percent rating for right knee degenerative arthritis remained in effect.
Following the Board’s August 2017 remand a July 2018 rating decision assigned a 20 percent rating for right knee degenerative arthritis under Diagnostic Codes 5003 and 5258, as well as a separate noncompensable rating for a right knee surgical scar.    
 
Right knee degenerative arthritis between February 7 and to April 9, 2007
In October 1998, the appellant underwent an arthroscopic examination, and partial medial and lateral meniscectomy at St. Clair Memorial Hospital.  During that examination the appellant was noted to show minimal arthritis in the lateral compartment.
The Veteran underwent VA examination in April 2007 at which time he reported undergoing the right meniscus repair in 1998.  Physical examination in April 2007 demonstrated no swelling, redness, or obvious deformities.  The examiner did not report evidence of locking or effusion.  There was tenderness to palpation at the distal aspect of the right knee joint, but no instability of the patella medially or laterally under-weight bearing and non-weight-bearing conditions.  There was no instability of the knee joint.  Lachman’s, anterior and posterior drawer, and McMurray’s tests were negative.  There was moderate crepitus with passive and active range of motion.  Range of motion was from 0 to 70 degrees with pain at 70 degrees. With forced flexion, the Veteran was able to continue to 90 degrees but pain increased leading to a loss of 50 degrees of full right knee flexion secondary to pain.  There was evidence of weakness, decreased endurance, or easy fatigability with repetitive range of motion testing.  Pain was the most limiting factor.
The nature and extent of any disability due to impairment of the semilunar cartilage under Diagnostic Codes 5258 and 5259 is discussed below.  Looking at whether a higher rating may be granted based on arthritis, as noted above, arthritis is rated based on the nature of any limitation of motion.  As also noted above, a 30 percent rating for a limitation of flexion motion may be granted if flexion is limited to 15 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260. Here, however, the Veteran showed flexion to no less than 50 degrees.  Hence, a higher rating is not in order under Diagnostic Code 5260.  
A 30 percent rating for a limitation of extension requires evidence showing that extension is limited to 20 degrees.  38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261.  For this period, however, the Veteran showed full extension to zero degrees.  Hence, an increased rating is not in order under that Code. 
Furthermore, the evidence preponderates against finding that right knee ankylosis, recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, or malunion or nonunion of the tibia and fibula provide a basis for a higher evaluation during this period.  There is no evidence of subluxation and the examiner reported no instability.  The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s testimony at his hearing regarding his right knee limitations on climbing ladders, kneeling down to work, walking long distances and other impacts on his private life, however, the objective evidence of record was not consistent with subluxation, or instability, sufficient to warrant an increased rating.  The Board finds the medical evidence as to the existence of subluxation and instability to be more probative than the appellant’s own statements given the expertise held by medical examiners, and the claimant’s lack of medical training.  Therefore, increased evaluations for right knee symptomatology are not warranted pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 4.7 la, Diagnostic Codes 5256, 5257, and 5262.
The claim is denied.  
As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application, and the claim remains denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).
Right knee degenerative arthritis since June 1, 2007
On April 10, 2007 the appellant underwent another arthroscopic examination, and a partial lateral meniscectomy.  After his temporary rating and recuperative period, the rating was returned to a 10 percent evaluation for degenerative arthritis and post-operative arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies.  A rating decision in July 2018 increased that rating to 20 percent effective June 1, 2007.
The Veteran attended a VA examination in March 2014.  The Veteran reported that he could no longer kneel on his right knee due to pain, and that he could not keep the knee flexed for over five minutes.  He reported flare ups of pain when using a ladder or during prolonged walking or standing, but indicated that he was able to work using a knee brace.  Range of motion testing found right knee flexion to 130 degrees, with painful motion at 130 degrees, and extension to 0 degrees with no objective evidence of painful motion.  There was no change in range of motion after repetitive testing.  The examiner noted that pain on movement caused functional loss, and found pain to palpation.  Factors contributing to the functional loss were decreased movement, with slight antalgic gait favoring the right knee.  The examiner also noted crepitus with anterior and posterior range of motion.
There was no decrease in strength, no recurrent patellar subluxation/dislocation.  Normal stability was observed.  There were no shin splints or any other impairment of the tibia or fibula.  The examiner wrote that there were flare ups, with frequent swelling on increased physical activity and that the joint would give out occasionally when transitioning from standing to sitting, but would rarely lock up.  The examiner found no residual sign or symptom due to a meniscectomy.  The examiner did note that a June 2009 MRI study showed an extensive tear of the lateral meniscus, an oblique tear of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus, moderate joint effusion, and a 2.2 centimeter Baker's cyst. Osteoarthritis was most prominent in the medial compartment.  The examiner also reported pain and decreased right knee motion with flexion and no change of motion or pain with extension.  Decreased motion with repetition and flare ups over time were predicted.  The degree of increased loss of motion with flexion was estimated to be 5 to 10 degrees with no further decrease in extension.  A 10 degree loss of flexion would decrease flexion to 120 degrees which warrants a noncompensable rating under Diagnostic Code 5260.
The Veteran was examined again by VA in January 2017.  He reported increased pain, and receiving injections for knee pain that did not provide relief.  The appellant alleged that he was unable to walk more than 5 minutes, unable to sit for more than 10-15 minutes, unable to climb more than 10-15 stairs, unable to kneel, and unable to stand for more than 10 minutes.  He endorsed a history of flare-ups. Physical examination revealed that the claimant walked with a slow antalgic gait.  He wore braces on each knee. Range of motion study showed extension to 0 degrees, and flexion to 120 degrees.  There was no evidence of pain on weight bearing, no evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint, and no evidence of crepitus.  There was no additional loss of motion with repetitive motion.  Muscle strength was 5/5, there was no evidence of muscle atrophy, and no evidence of recurrent subluxation, recurrent effusion, or anterior, posterior, medial or lateral instability.  The nonservice connected left knee showed a range of motion from 0 to 130 degrees.  The appellant was noted to have worked full time for 31 years.
The Veteran was examined most recently in October 2017.  He reported that his knee disorder impacted his ability to perform the maintenance technician responsibilities associated with his employment.  He described limitations to his ability to walk, kneel, use ladders, and impacts to his personal life.  He reported daily use of pain medications and periodic injections to lessen the discomfort.  
Physical examination revealed right knee flexion to 120 degrees and extension to 0 degrees with no functional loss or evidence of pain on testing.  Subjectively, the Veteran reported constant pain, even at rest, which was not demonstrated during the examination.  Passive range of motion testing and non-weight bearing testing elicited no pain.  Muscle strength was 5/5, there was no evidence of muscle atrophy, and no evidence of recurrent subluxation, recurrent effusion, or anterior, posterior, medial or lateral instability.  The examination included consideration of the opposite similarly impaired knee.  Objective evidence of crepitus was found.  Additional functional loss was not reported after repetitive testing and there was localized tenderness on palpation to include the bursa and lateral bursa.  Pain, weakness, fatigability, and incoordination were not found to significantly limit the appellant’s functional ability with repeated use over a period of time, nor did it do so with flare-ups.  Muscle strength was normal, and joint stability was normal, including a finding of no recurrent subluxation.  There was no tibia or fibula impairment.  The right knee was noted to have a mild amount of joint effusion, and Veteran reported regular use of a brace to facilitate his mobility.
After reviewing the evidence, the Board finds that entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for right knee degenerative arthritis with post-operative residuals of arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies since June 1, 2007 is not warranted.  First, the nature and extent of any disability due to impairment of the semilunar cartilage under Diagnostic Codes 5258 and 5259 is discussed below.
With respect to the assignment of a higher rating based on a limitation of motion at no time was the Veteran’s range of right knee motion of a sufficient severity to allow for a rating in excess of 20 percent on either flexion or extension, even with painful motion taken into account.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5260, 5261.  Further, there is no medical evidence showing a service connected malunion of the tibia or fibula with marked knee disability that might support an increased rating under Diagnostic Code 5262.
In sum, entitlement to a rating higher than 20 percent for right knee degenerative arthritis with post-operative residuals of arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies since June 1, 2007 is not warranted.  As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application, and the claim must be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).  
Residuals of right knee arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies since February 7, 2007
Initially the Board notes that separate ratings under Diagnostic Codes 5258 and 5259 may be assigned for disability of the same joint, if none of the symptomatology on which each rating is based is duplicative or overlapping. See VAOPGCPREC 9-04; 69 Fed. Reg. 59,990 (2004); 38 C.F.R. § 4.14.
The Board’s February 2016 decision granted entitlement to a separate 10 percent evaluation for post-operative residuals of right knee arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies under Diagnostic Code 5259.  The rating was assigned under Diagnostic Code 5259.  A 10 percent rating is the maximum rating available under that Code.  Hence, the issue before the Board becomes entitlement to a separate 20 percent evaluation under Diagnostic Code 5258.
Under Diagnostic Code 5258, a 20 percent rating is assigned when the cartilage is dislocated with frequent episodes of joint locking, pain, and effusion into the joint. The Board has reviewed all of the medical evidence of record and finds that a separate 20 percent rating is in order under Diagnostic Code 5258.  
Knee surgeries for the Veteran included a partial medial and partial lateral meniscectomy in October 1998, and a partial meniscectomy in April 2007.  MRIs in April 2006 and July 2009 confirmed the existence of posterior and anterior horn of the lateral meniscus tears.  The medical evidence also supports an ongoing finding of symptoms of considerable pain with intensities of 3 to 4 out of 10 and weekly flares in the range of 7 to 8 out of 10 with frequent swelling.  The Veteran reported right knee clicking and locking occasionally in a July 2009 statement.  At a March 2014 VA knee examination, the examiner noted the appellant’s report of frequent episodes of joint locking, pain and effusion.  
The Board finds ongoing consistent and credible reporting of pain associated with the right knee, to pain requiring the use of Vicodin and injections, as discussed at the Veteran’s August 2013 Board hearing.  Hearing testimony also included evidence of abnormal gait, sleep deprivation from knee pain but no description of joint locking.  The October 2017 VA knee examination noted a history of recurrent effusion.  
While the January and October 2017 knee examination reports contain no confirmation of knee locking, the Board finds that the appellant is competent to report that his knee locks.  Thus, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor the Board finds that residuals of arthroscopies and meniscectomies warrant a separate 20 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5258 since February 7, 2007.  Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014). ("By requiring only an 'approximate balance of positive and negative evidence' . . ., the nation, 'in recognition of our debt to our veterans,' has 'taken upon itself the risk of error' in awarding . . . benefits.").
Individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities  
In Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that if the claimant or the evidence of record reasonably raises the question of whether the Veteran is unemployable due to a disability for which an increased rating is sought, then part and parcel with the increased rating claim is the issue of whether a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service connected disorders is warranted as a result of that disability.  In the present case, there are indications in the record that reasonably raise a claim of entitlement to individual unemployability benefits due to service connected disabilities.  
A total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service connected disorders may be assigned when the veteran is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities (without regard to age).  38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16.  If there is only one such disability, it must be rated at 60 percent or more, and if there are two or more disabilities, there shall be at least one disability rated at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a).  
For the above purpose of one 60 percent disability, or one 40 percent disability in combination, the following will be considered as one disability: (1) disabilities of one or both upper extremities, or of one or both lower extremities, including the bilateral factor, if applicable, (2) disabilities resulting from common etiology or a single accident, (3) disabilities affecting a single body system, e.g. orthopedic, digestive, respiratory, cardiovascular, renal, neuropsychiatric, (4) multiple injuries incurred in action, or (5) multiple disabilities incurred as a prisoner of war. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a).
For those Veterans who fail to meet the percentage standards set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a), total disability ratings for compensation may nevertheless be assigned when it is found that the service-connected disabilities are sufficient to produce unemployability; such cases should be referred to the Director, Compensation Service, for extraschedular consideration. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (b).
The central inquiry is “whether the veteran’s service-connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability.”  Hatlestad v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 524, 529 (1993).  Neither nonservice-connected disabilities nor advancing age may be considered in the determination.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.341, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993).  Thus, the Board may not consider the effects of a veteran’s nonservice-connected disabilities on his ability to function.
A claim for a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability “presupposes that the rating for the (service-connected) condition is less than 100 percent, and only asks for [such a rating]  because of ‘subjective’ factors that the ‘objective’ rating does not consider.”  See Vettese v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 31, 34-35 (1994).  
The sole fact that a claimant is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment is not enough.  A high rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain and keep employment.  The question is whether the veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the veteran can find employment.
The initial question for consideration is whether or not the schedular criteria for a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability rating in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a) are met.  During the period on appeal, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities included right knee post-operative arthroscopies and partial meniscectomies rated as 10 percent disabling under Diagnostic Code 5259 and 20 percent disabling under Diagnostic Code 5258; right knee degenerative arthritis rated as 20 percent disabling; and for a right knee surgical scar evaluated as noncompensable.  The combined rating was 40 percent.  Therefore, the Veteran did not meet the schedular criteria for a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16 (a).
The Board must next consider whether the Veteran’s service-connected right knee disabilities were of a nature and quality, such that referral for extraschedular consideration is necessary.  In response to a request from VA, the United States Postal Service confirmed that the Veteran was employed full time with that agency as of October 10, 2017.  Reported history in medical records also reflected employment with the Post Office for thirty years.  Given these facts this case does not present any extraordinary circumstances which are not contemplated under the rating schedule that might justify referral for extraschedular consideration of a claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability.  As such, the facts of this case do not justify referral for consideration of entitlement to an extraschedular rating.  
The claim is denied.
 
DEREK R. BROWN
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Allen M. Kerpan, Associate Counsel 

For A Complete Guide To VA Disability Claims and to find out more about your potential VA disability case and how to obtain favorable VA Rating Decision! Visit: VA-Claims.org

For More Information on Veterans Disability Compensation Benefits! Visit: DisableVeteran.org ~ A Non-Profit Non Governmental Agency


Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.