BVA Case 23-3986: Back

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · July 19,2024 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Unknown
Decision Date
July 19,2024
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

BackCervicalShoulderEyeRadiculopathy

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionEffective DateIncreased Rating

Why It Was Decided This Way

July 2016 Board Decision and Appeal In a July 2016 decision,the Board denied a rating higher than 20%for left shoulder dislocation,status postsurgical repair with residual tendinitis and surgical scars; and the Board denied a rating higher than 10% for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy of the 4 Case:23-3986 Page: 5 of 16 Filed:07/19/2024 musculocutaneous nerve,status post left shoulder surgery with residual scars.

The parties agreed that the Board failed to address favorable evidence in finding that Mr.

The parties also agreed that the Board failed to address whether the September 2015 examination was adequate given the examiner's finding that Mr.

Finally,the Board noted that on remand clarification must be obtained as to whether the veteran has a peripheral nerve condition or peripheral neuropathy given that the September 2015 examination report conflicted with other evidence of record.

June 2023 Board Decision In the June 2023 decision on appeal,the Board found it had jurisdiction over the ratings and effective dates for left shoulder recurrent subluxation and left upper extremity scars assigned in the March 2023 rating decision because these issues arose as part of the [v]eteran's request for an increased rating for his left shoulder dislocation.

The Board denied increased ratings and earlier effective dates for left shoulder subluxation,R.

The Board noted that for limitation of motion of the arm midway between the side and shoulder level of the minor extremity,the appellant's current disability rating is 20%under DC 5201.

The Board noted a lack of evidence that the veteran's left shoulder ROM was limited to 25 degrees from the side,even with pain or after repetitive use, at any point during the appeal period.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArdison v. BrownAries v. PeakeBailey v. WilkieBarr v. NicholsonBethea v. DerwinskiBodon v. WilkieCaluza v. BrownDeloach v. ShinsekiEuzebio v. McEvans v. ShinsekiFletcher v. DerwinskiFrankel v. DerwinskiGabrielson v. BrownGilbert v. DerwinskiGutierrez v. PrincipiHarper v. WilkieJohnston v. BrownKutscherousky v. WestMonzingo v. ShinsekiMoore v. ShinsekiNutt v. GenRodriguez v. PeakeSee Estevez v. McSee Hensley v. WestSee Hilkert v. WestSee Kay v. PrincipiSee Smallwood v. BrownSee Tucker v. WestSee Yonek v. Shinseki

Denial Type

Credibility|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam

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 →