BVA Case 22-5983: Depression

Parties'Arguments The appellant contends that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases because the Board did not sufficiently consider the January 2016 private medical record showing that he had decreased cervical spine range of motion and because the Board relied on its own medical opinion to find that his range of motion did not satisfy the criteria for a higher rating.

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 reasons or bases that is adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.

As for the private medical records, the Board found that the appellant had reported a moderate degree of sharp pain with stiffness and soreness in the upper right side of his back and neck, and in January 2016,his ranges of motion[]were decreased with moderate pain.

The Board noted that a 10%rating is warranted when the limitation of motion of the specific joint .

In assessing whether a rating higher than 10%was appropriate,the Board determined that there was no evidence .

The Board acknowledged the appellant's statements that he has functional loss due to stiffness and cramping, but the Board found that the degree of additional limitation would not result in limitation of motion more nearly approximating the rating criteria for a 20% rating.