BVA Case 14-1940: Back

In July 2007,the Board denied a higher initial disability evaluation for right CTS but remanded the cervical strain and onychomycosis claims for additional development in compliance with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA).

The examiner found no radiculopathy on examination and opined that upper extremity peripheral neuropathy was secondary to diabetes mellitus and not related to the cervical condition.

Hartzog challenges several aspects of the April 2014 Board decision,with each of these arguments grounded in his contention that the Board failed to offer adequate reasons or bases to support its determinations.

To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of evidence,account for evidence that it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide reasons for its rejection of material evidence favorable to the claimant.

5 The Board found that bilateral foot onychomycosis is most appropriately evaluated as dermatitis under [DC]7806 because [t]here is no evidence that the disability involves other than the toenails of the feet,or that there are resulting scars.

And because there was no evidence of involvement of at least 5%of the entire body or of exposed areas or of the need for intermittent systemic therapy,the Board concluded that a compensable evaluation under DC 7806 was not warranted.

As part of its discussion,the Board noted the finding of the September 2010 VA examiner that there was no evidence of active fungal infection of the feet.

Mainly,he contends that the Board failed to adequately explain why a compensable evaluation for onychomycosis was not warranted under DC 7804 for painful scars.