BVA Case 18-4445: Back

First,we are asked to decide whether the Board failed to discuss medical evidence showing that PVD of the left lower extremity had first manifested in January 2006 warranting an earlier effective date (EED)for the grant of service connection for that condition.

Second,we are asked to decide whether the Board's finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider entitlement to increased ratings for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities prior to April 5,2013,was clearly erroneous or,alternatively,supported by inadequate reasons or bases.

As the parties agree, because the Board failed to acknowledge its February 2016 decision and the Court's April 18, 2018,memorandum decision,and failed to adequately explain what effect these proceedings had on its jurisdictional finding,the Court will set aside the Board's determination that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the peripheral neuropathy claim and remand this matter for readjudication.

Third,we are asked to decide if the Board erred or,alternatively,provided inadequate reasons or bases,when it assigned separate ratings of 20%, but no higher,for bilateral femoral nerve neuropathy,effective from July 2013.

As the parties agree, because the Board did not address Mr.

Finally,we are asked to decide whether the Board erred or,alternatively,provided inadequate reasons or bases, when it found that, under Diagnostic Code (DC) 7806,topical therapies are systemic only if applied over a sufficiently broad area,and therefore denied increased ratings for tinea pedis and onychomycosis during the applicable appeal periods.

After further development,the Board determined in the decision on appeal that an effective date earlier than June 2,2006,for the grant of service connection for PVD of the left lower extremity was not warranted.

A Board determination as to the proper effective date is a finding of fact that will not be overturned unless the Court finds the determination to be clearly erroneous.