BVA Case 17-0731: Back

The examiner also concluded that the appellant's urinary frequency is not related to her back disability.

ANALYSIS The appellant argues that the Board erred when it (1) denied a disability rating in excess of 20%under DC 5237 prior to March 30,2010,and after January 24,2016,a disability rating in excess of 20%under DC 8520,and a disability rating under a separate neurologic DC;(2)found that entitlement to TDIU was not reasonably raised by the record;and (3)found incomplete VA examinations nonprejudicial.

Disability Ratings The Board's determination of the proper disability rating is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

As with any material issue of fact or law,the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision, as well as to facilitate review in this Court.

The Board determined that the appellant had reported flareups during the middle period of this appeal, as shown by the following evidence: The March 2010 VA examination,which reflected additional limitation of motion during flare[]ups [that]was significantly less than that required for a rating in excess [of]or [for]20[%] ;the appellant's August 2011 hearing testimony, which demonstrated that her disability had increased .

Ultimately,the Board concluded that an increased rating of 40% was warranted but only from March 30,2010,to January 24,2016: While the extent of the limitation during flare[]ups is not well documented,the Board must decide this appeal on the basis of the available evidence.

The Board determined that,prior to the January 2016 VA examination, the evidence showed only abnormal findings .