BVA Case 16-2957: Back

In a December 2006 decision,the Board denied the appellant's increased rating claim.

In a May 2015 joint motion for partial remand (JMPR), the parties agreed that another remand was warranted because the Board failed to address relevant evidence as to whether he was entitled to increased ratings during the appeal period.

In an April 2016 decision,the Board denied a disability rating in excess of 10%prior to January 10,2007,and awarded a 50% 2 rating,but no higher,for the period beginning on January 10,2007.

Period Prior to January 10,2007 The appellant argues that,for the period prior to January 10,2007,the Board failed to adequately explain why it assigned greater probative value to objective evidence demonstrating a lack of foot swelling than to his lay statements describing foot swelling.

He also asserts that the Board failed to address his diagnosis of plantar fasciitis and rate the condition separately under DC 5284 ( Foot injuries,other ).

In the decision on appeal,the Board determined that a disability rating in excess of 10% was not warranted for bilateral pes planus for the period prior to January 10,2007.

In describing the appellant's disability picture,the Board noted the appellant's complaints of,among other things, pain on use of feet and symptoms improved by orthopedic inserts, citing several VA examination reports and lay statements.

The Board found that the appellant's disability picture most nearly approximated a 10%rating under DC 5276.