BVA Case 21-0814: Back
Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · January 10,2022 · MEREDITH, Judge
Conditions Claimed
Issues on Appeal
Service ConnectionEffective DateReopenTdiuIncreased Rating
Why It Was Decided This Way
The same month, the Board denied 1 When an unlisted condition is encountered it will be permissible to rate under a closely related disease or injury in which not only the functions affected,but the anatomical localization and symptomatology are closely analogous.
In the JMPR,the parties agreed that,in denying entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10%for left foot sesamoiditis, the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases.
Specifically,the Board failed to adequately explain why the most appropriate diagnostic code for rating [the a]ppellant's sesamoiditis was diagnostic code 5280, or explain why the sesamoiditis was more closely related to unilateral hallux valgus and diagnostic code 5280 than any other disabilities and diagnostic codes it considered.
On January 19,2021,the Board denied a disability rating in excess of 10%for left foot sesamoiditis,status post bunionectomy.
85,86 (1992),the appellant generally asserts that the Board failed to sympathetically read his pleadings,provide adequate reasons or bases,and set forth the standard of review for evaluating the evidence.
Specifically,as liberally construed, he avers that his left foot sesamoiditis and hallux valgus have been rated under the wrong diagnostic code since April 2000 and the Board should have retroactively corrected that error,that the Board failed to consider favorable evidence in assigning a rating for left foot sesamoiditis under DC 5284,that he is entitled to a separate rating for hallux valgus under DC 5280,that the period on appeal should begin in 2008 rather than 2018,and that the Board failed to adjudicate the issues of entitlement to TDIU prior to 2017 and an allegation of CUE in a 2004 rating decision.
Board Decision After reviewing the procedural history of the appellant's claim,the Board noted that the period on appeal spanned from 1 year prior to the 2019 claim through the date of the April 2019 RO decision,and the Board explained that the appellant's left foot conditions were at that time rated under DC 5276 for pes planus,DC 5299-5280 for sesamoiditis and scar,DC 7802 for a status post bunionectomy residual scar,and DC 5003 for degenerative joint disease of the metatarsal- phalangeal joint.
The Board determined that a rating for sesamoiditis under DC 5280 was no longer appropriate because the appellant underwent a bunionectomy in 1996 and the bunion repair fully healed.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Not New Material|Cue
Find Similar Precedent for Your Claim
VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.
Run my claim through VetAid →