Confusedvet1

I read the letter a bunch and it was confusing. I called Peggy and I recorded the call as well and I confirmed that the board did not give a specific effective date other than saying the one the VA gave me was wrong. So I agree completely with the decision and my rating so we just have to see if they get the effective date right this time. This is my decision letter. I'm confused why they talk about February 2020 but at the end he seems to lay out a great case for an effective date back to 2013. ORDER Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period prior to October 15, 2020 is granted. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period from October 15, 2020 onward is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy manifested as a painful scar for the period prior to October 15, 2020. 2. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy manifested as three or four unstable or painful scars for the period from October 15, 2020 onward. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period prior to October 15, 2020 have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.7, 4.118. 2. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period from October 15, 2020 onward have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.7, 4.118. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the Marine Corps from September 2003 to September 2007. These matters originate from a March 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that granted an initial noncompensable rating for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy (right wrist scar). The Veteran timely initiated and perfected an appeal of the initial rating assigned to his right wrist scar. The Veteran's October 2015 Form 9 reflects that he requested a hearing before a Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) Veterans' Law Judge (VLJ); however, in May 2019 the Veteran, through his representative, communicated in writing that he desired to withdraw his hearing request. The Board remanded the Veteran's right wrist claim in December 2019 for additional development. Specifically, the Board directed that the VA treatment records be obtained from VA medical facilities in Canandaigua, New York and Rochester, New York; and that the Veteran subsequently be afforded a VA examination to determine the current severity of his right wrist scar disability. A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to substantial compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Updated VA treatment records from various VA facilities, including the Canandaigua, New York and Rochester, New York facilities, were associated with the claims file in June 2020, August 2020, and September 2020. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2020. The RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in October 2020. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with its December 2019 remand directives. The Board notes that while the March 2015 rating decision on appeal assigned an effective date in December 2014 for the grant of service connection for the Veteran's right wrist scar, that effective date has since been revised to February 18. 2013 by a June 2020 rating decision. An October 2020 rating decision granted the Veteran an increased rating for his right wrist scar, effective October 15, 2020, As the highest possible rating has not been assigned with respect to the period from October 15, 2020, onward, the appeal continues. See AB v Brown. 6 Vet App. 35 (1993). In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the issues currently before it are entitlement to an initial disability rating for the Veteran's right wrist scar for the period from February 18, 2020, to October 14, 2020; and entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for his right wrist sear for the period from October 15, 202,0 onward. Entitlement to a disability rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period prior to October 15, 2020 is granted; entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period from October 15, 2020 onward is denied. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) and are intended to represent the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Disabilities must be reviewed in relation to their history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Other applicable general policy considerations are: interpreting reports of examination in light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating many accurately reflect the elements of disability, resolving any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability in favor of the claimant; where there is a questions as to which of two evaluations apply, assigning a higher of the two where the disability pictures more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating; and, evaluating functional impairment on the basis of lack of usefulness, and the effects of the disability upon the person's ordinary activity. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10; see also Schafrath v Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). In adjudicating claims for VA benefits, the burden of proof only requires an "approximate balance" of the evidence for and against a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b), 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1991). This low standard of proof is "unique" to the VA adjudicatory process, and "the nation, 'in recognition of our debt to our veterans,' has taken upon itself the risk of error' in awarding such benefits." Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014). In evaluating a claim for disability benefits, when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. VA must consider all lay and medical evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Laypeople are competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by their senses, such as pain. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). The Veteran's right wrist scar is currently rated under diagnostic code 7805, which refers to diagnostic codes 780, 7801, 7802, and 7804. Diagnostic code 7800 applies to scars of the head, face or neck; diagnostic code 7801 refers to scars associated with underlying soft tissue damage; diagnostic code 7802 applies to scars with an area of 929 sq. cm. or greater; and diagnostic code 7804 applies to scars which are unstable or painful. The Veteran's right wrist scar is not a scar of the head, face, or neck. As discussed below, there is no evidence reflecting underlying soft tissue damage, or that the Veteran's scar is of an area 929 sq. cm. or greater. Accordingly, the Board finds that diagnostic code 7. 804 ("Scar(s), unstable or painful") is the appropriate code under which to rate the Veteran's right wrist scar. Under diagnostic code 7804, a disability rating of 10 percent is warranted when there are one or two scars that are unstable or painful; progressively higher disability ratings are warranted where there are 3 or more scars that are unstable or painful. A February 2015 VA examiner documented no pain or instability of the Veteran's right wrist scar, and documented the Veteran's scar as being 13 linear cm. In March 2015 a VA treating provider documented the Veteran's complaint of pain at the area of his right wrist scar. In his March 2015 written Notice of Disagreement (NOD) to VA, the Veteran stated that his right wrist scar was painful. In his October 2015 Form 9, the Veteran again reported that his scar was painful, particularly after using his hand and/or wrist to perform tasks such as assembling things or using hand tools. In November 2015 a VA treating provider documented the Veteran's report that he "still has problems with scar tissue." The October 2020 VA examiner documented the Veteran's report that his right wrist scar was intermittently painful and exacerbated by repetitive movements. The October 2020 VA examiner measured the Veteran's scar as 9 cm. by .5 cm., with additional swelling measuring 5.5 cm. by 3 cm. The examiner documented the Veteran's scar as being tender to palpation, but noted that the scar was not unstable, and that there was no underlying soft tissue damage. The evidence does not reflect the presence of any scar other than the right wrist scar associated with the Veteran's tenosynovectomy. The evidence does not reflect any scars with an area greater than 929 sq. cm or associated with underlying soft tissue damage. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's right wrist scar has manifested as a painful scar throughout the period on appeal. Accordingly, and in light of VA's obligation to give the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the Board finds that the criteria for an initial disability rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for the period prior to October 15, 2020 have been met, and the same is hereby granted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.74.118. The Board further finds that the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period from October 15, 2020 onward have not been met, and the same is hereby denied. Id.

Just thought I would update. I didn't do anything and let this just go back to the BVA. The BVA granted me 10% prior to current effective date and closed appeal. So it's at RO in ready for decision stage. The BVA said I'm entitled to earlier effective date but didn't give a specific date but they did note that I complained of pain in that area when I first filed even though the original C&P exam said I didn't have pain which was not accurate. They also noted that the claims I submitted for at same time we're back dated to 2013. So they definitely layed the ground work for me for that earlier effective date if my RO screws it up again. Best advice I got was to cancel my board hearing and let the judge review the evidence. It's worked out for me and assuming I get the EED I won at everything I appealed. The judge agreed with all my written legal arguments and even threw some in to help my case I hadn't considered. For example for tinnitus I was denied because I had tubes as child. VA said they were related and not my noise exposure and event without hearing protection in service. I countered with fact that my medical exam going into military showed no scaring on ear drum and half way through service it was noted that there was scarring. The judge said that my statement of when ringing occurred was proper lay evidence and that even though I told VA and military I had tubes in ears as child I was competent to speak about that and since the VA didn't provide any medical evidence about it that it couldn't be considered.

I asked Peggy last week to transfer me to BVA and they told me they were it now.

The number ending in 1000 (Peggy) is the BVA #. They aren't helpful at all though like the old bva was. Any of these links your talking about? https://www.benefits.va.gov/WARMS/M27_1.asp https://www.bva.va.gov/

The official policy says they can't talk or send it to you before 10 days because of privacy act. Doesn't say what privacy act or why privacy would matter if they can email it after 10 mailing days (Monday through Saturday) . But don't tell them they sent it to wrong address or else your 10 days starts again when they mail it to correct address lol. I was just on VA website about stats and I went to the page that talks about the time to get an initial decision for fully developed claims and traditional claims. There is a blurb that says if you do FDC you will get a decision sooner ( I was looking because claims handled expeditiously should be faster then this since the veteran has waited longer then new claims) . Funny thing was the average time for a traditional claim was 3 days faster then a FDC claim. So basically that means if you file a claim traditionally your not saying all the evidence is in the claim you submitted. That's important because at that point the VA has a duty to assist your claim. Meaning they have to look at your records they have access too. A FDC claim is you saying that you're ready for a decision and you have submitted all the evidence needed. So how you make a decision faster when your supposed to help the veteran essentially gather more evidence then when a veteran says it's all here is beyond me.

Oh and if anyone talks to their congress person I suggest asking them to make a rule that retroactive pay should be paid at current amount. Not only will it make it easier for VA to calculate it, it would also make sure veterans aren't getting short changed because of inflation. Had they paid you in beginning the money would have more spending power. By having to wait years and years you effectively lost that spending power since they calculate it based on the rage changes during the period they didn't pay.

Oh and I encourage everyone to read this. It's going to be part 1 chapter 3 title telephone interviews. https://www.benefits.va.gov/WARMS/M27_1.asp It's literally their playbook when you call Peggy. Have you ever called and they said there system is down? It's the system that walks them through the call which is what's posted above. I've confirmed this with an operator when they said they could see my information but could document the call and that they didn't have access to their scripts. I had person being rude to me when I was as calm as a cucumber. He was cutting me off and not letting me talk and trying to end the call using scripts in the manual. So I knew all I had to do was ask for supervisor and the manual says I've the veteran is persistent they have to transfer which he did and I actually got my questions answered. There is even a guide that talks about the 4 types of veteran callers and how to deal with each. So if you haven't read it I suggest you do.

I hate the VA and the games they play. I also think they have grown to hate me LMAO! My appeal was sitting in national cue for a long time and I had the DAV as my rep (I got rid of them for doing nothing for me, I did everything myself) and the DAV told me to stop calling the VA and that my claim was being worked. However it actually wasn't being worked at all. One of the VARO congressional liaisons was eventually assigned to deal with me and said it hadn't been worked at all and that they would personally see that it did. 3 days later I had a decision. It was wrong lol but I did get it worked. What I did was submit a iris inquiry asking for various stats on manpower and manpower allocation. I was told new claims and appeals and legacy appeals all had different queues of being worked. Federal regulations state that claims sent back from a higher authority (BVA) to the RO have to be worked expeditiously. They also state that the VA secretary is responsible for this. So I made it clear I wanted the stats to prove they were violating it. That's when I had my claim done in 3 days, I also have an email saying they were going to get the information requested and email it to me. That was last June. I called them last week to see what was happening and I was told that inquiry was closed so I told them reopen it because I never received that information. Next day I got an email with a link to stats on website that I didn't ask for so I called Peggy back and told them to reopen it again and send the information that a RO director stated would be sent to me. The operator said i would never get that information but I told them to reopen it anyways. Allegedly I also have a letter coming to me regarding the VA policy that they can't talk to you about award letters until after youve read it and that they can't email it to you until after 10 mailing days even though that cuts into your appeal time. I told them I felt it was a due process violation and that I wanted to know why that policy was in place and that if they made decision letters available immediately online it would make veterans lives easier, it would also reduce the number of calls they call center gets so it would also save the VA money. Apparently (Peggy said but couldn't tell me specifics because I haven't read it yet myself lol) there is a ton of information that the Peggy person has never seen anyone get so I'm interested to see it. Bottom line I've made it my mission to hold the VA accountable. Even my lawyer I have representing me was surprised at my wins at BVA lol. I do love the BVA though because I do feel they do everything they can for veterans.

Thank you! Now I just have to understand what the letter actually says lol. I get really confused when he talks about February 2020 to October 2020 as the only issue left and the end of the letter sounds like he is trying to tell RO to consider all the facts and imply my effective date should actually be 2013 timeframe. Or is that just wishful thinking on my part? ORDER Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period prior to October 15, 2020 is granted. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period from October 15, 2020 onward is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy manifested as a painful scar for the period prior to October 15, 2020. 2. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy manifested as three or four unstable or painful scars for the period from October 15, 2020 onward. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period prior to October 15, 2020 have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.7, 4.118. 2. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period from October 15, 2020 onward have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.7, 4.118. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the Marine Corps from September 2003 to September 2007. These matters originate from a March 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that granted an initial noncompensable rating for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy (right wrist scar). The Veteran timely initiated and perfected an appeal of the initial rating assigned to his right wrist scar. The Veteran's October 2015 Form 9 reflects that he requested a hearing before a Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) Veterans' Law Judge (VLJ); however, in May 2019 the Veteran, through his representative, communicated in writing that he desired to withdraw his hearing request. The Board remanded the Veteran's right wrist claim in December 2019 for additional development. Specifically, the Board directed that the VA treatment records be obtained from VA medical facilities in Canandaigua, New York and Rochester, New York; and that the Veteran subsequently be afforded a VA examination to determine the current severity of his right wrist scar disability. A remand by the Board confers on the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to substantial compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Updated VA treatment records from various VA facilities, including the Canandaigua, New York and Rochester, New York facilities, were associated with the claims file in June 2020, August 2020, and September 2020. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2020. The RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in October 2020. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with its December 2019 remand directives. The Board notes that while the March 2015 rating decision on appeal assigned an effective date in December 2014 for the grant of service connection for the Veteran's right wrist scar, that effective date has since been revised to February 18. 2013 by a June 2020 rating decision. An October 2020 rating decision granted the Veteran an increased rating for his right wrist scar, effective October 15, 2020, As the highest possible rating has not been assigned with respect to the period from October 15, 2020, onward, the appeal continues. See AB v Brown. 6 Vet App. 35 (1993). In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the issues currently before it are entitlement to an initial disability rating for the Veteran's right wrist scar for the period from February 18, 2020, to October 14, 2020; and entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for his right wrist sear for the period from October 15, 202,0 onward. Entitlement to a disability rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period prior to October 15, 2020 is granted; entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for surgical scar, right wrist status post tenosynovectomy for the period from October 15, 2020 onward is denied. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) and are intended to represent the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Disabilities must be reviewed in relation to their history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Other applicable general policy considerations are: interpreting reports of examination in light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating many accurately reflect the elements of disability, resolving any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability in favor of the claimant; where there is a questions as to which of two evaluations apply, assigning a higher of the two where the disability pictures more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating; and, evaluating functional impairment on the basis of lack of usefulness, and the effects of the disability upon the person's ordinary activity. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10; see also Schafrath v Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). In adjudicating claims for VA benefits, the burden of proof only requires an "approximate balance" of the evidence for and against a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b), 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1991). This low standard of proof is "unique" to the VA adjudicatory process, and "the nation, 'in recognition of our debt to our veterans,' has taken upon itself the risk of error' in awarding such benefits." Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014). In evaluating a claim for disability benefits, when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. VA must consider all lay and medical evidence of record. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Laypeople are competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by their senses, such as pain. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). The Veteran's right wrist scar is currently rated under diagnostic code 7805, which refers to diagnostic codes 780, 7801, 7802, and 7804. Diagnostic code 7800 applies to scars of the head, face or neck; diagnostic code 7801 refers to scars associated with underlying soft tissue damage; diagnostic code 7802 applies to scars with an area of 929 sq. cm. or greater; and diagnostic code 7804 applies to scars which are unstable or painful. The Veteran's right wrist scar is not a scar of the head, face, or neck. As discussed below, there is no evidence reflecting underlying soft tissue damage, or that the Veteran's scar is of an area 929 sq. cm. or greater. Accordingly, the Board finds that diagnostic code 7. 804 ("Scar(s), unstable or painful") is the appropriate code under which to rate the Veteran's right wrist scar. Under diagnostic code 7804, a disability rating of 10 percent is warranted when there are one or two scars that are unstable or painful; progressively higher disability ratings are warranted where there are 3 or more scars that are unstable or painful. A February 2015 VA examiner documented no pain or instability of the Veteran's right wrist scar, and documented the Veteran's scar as being 13 linear cm. In March 2015 a VA treating provider documented the Veteran's complaint of pain at the area of his right wrist scar. In his March 2015 written Notice of Disagreement (NOD) to VA, the Veteran stated that his right wrist scar was painful. In his October 2015 Form 9, the Veteran again reported that his scar was painful, particularly after using his hand and/or wrist to perform tasks such as assembling things or using hand tools. In November 2015 a VA treating provider documented the Veteran's report that he "still has problems with scar tissue." The October 2020 VA examiner documented the Veteran's report that his right wrist scar was intermittently painful and exacerbated by repetitive movements. The October 2020 VA examiner measured the Veteran's scar as 9 cm. by .5 cm., with additional swelling measuring 5.5 cm. by 3 cm. The examiner documented the Veteran's scar as being tender to palpation, but noted that the scar was not unstable, and that there was no underlying soft tissue damage. The evidence does not reflect the presence of any scar other than the right wrist scar associated with the Veteran's tenosynovectomy. The evidence does not reflect any scars with an area greater than 929 sq. cm or associated with underlying soft tissue damage. The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's right wrist scar has manifested as a painful scar throughout the period on appeal. Accordingly, and in light of VA's obligation to give the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the Board finds that the criteria for an initial disability rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for the period prior to October 15, 2020 have been met, and the same is hereby granted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.74.118. The Board further finds that the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period from October 15, 2020 onward have not been met, and the same is hereby denied. Id.

Ok so I finally got my letter in the mail today. The judge denied in excess of 10% for scar which is what I expected and thought should happen and granted the issue that I should be entitled to an earlier effective date. However they didn't give a specific effective date. He didn't remand it either and nothing on VA.gov is open for claims or appeals and effective date hasn't changed. Does that mean RO is working on new effective date or did they forget to do something and I need to talk to someone to make it happen?

Interesting side note for others. According to VA policy if you call them and tell them you received the letter and have questions then they can talk about the decision letter with you. If you say you haven't received it yet then you have to wait 10 mailing days.

Thanks all. I'll just have to wait. I read the guidelines for RO on scar pain and they aren't supposed to award it until the veteran says it hurts at exam. They say that is objective evidence even though examiner can't know for sure and goes by what veteran says. But if veteran complains not to examiner then it's subjective evidence which makes no sense. There are plenty of complaints of pain prior to me filing original claim so hopefully my assumption is right. The RO didn't even complete remand instructions specifically reviewing and considering evidence the judge told them to review. I base this on the letter that said what evidence they considered. So I guess I'm still hopeful that it's moot if they gave me earlier effective date. Like you all have said, I guess I just have to wait and see. My effective date hasn't changed for the scar issue online but I'm assuming that would take weeks or months to happen anyways.

Hello, Years ago I filed a claim for a scar from surgery while in service. They granted the scar at 0% . I appealed it saying it was painful and should be rated at 10%. RO denied it so it went to the BVA who remanded it back to RO because the original exam wasn't proper and the VA didn't review records it had that were pertinent to claim. The BVA remand instructions were to review specific records and do a new exam. I had a new exam and later received a letter from RO saying they granted me 10% but the effective date was the date of new exam. They said that is the first diagnosis of scar pain even though my records going back years show me complaining of pain which is why I suspect BVA told them to review those records. The RO decision letter stated the only used the new exam as evidence for their decision. So it went back to the BVA and it seems they made a decision. I'm waiting on the letter but website said they granted my claim and also denied it? Any ideas on how this is possible? I'm hoping it's a grant for earlier effective date and denial of an increase in excess of 10%? Anyone have any ideas on what they would grant and deny same claim?

Thanks for taking the time to respond. This whole thing is kind of a cluster lol. I filed originally for forearm, wrist, hand and thumb since that encompassed the while area effected. I complained of lots of pains which were consistent complaints. When the BVA service connected it my RO gave me 10% based on pain from elbow that was mentioned in the original CP exam. I never had surgery on elbow and they ignored all my complaints in my records dealing with forearm, wrist and hand pains. I haven't had any new pains and the pains determined to be scar pain during exam have been there since I filed claimed. So maybe that's what I need to bring up during my appeal? I'm at least allowed to say the pain has been the same and consistent. There are a lot of complaints of pain even predating 2013. As I mentioned before as well this decision only used the new CP exam as evidence even though BVA said they needed to review additional medical records VA had in there possession that they never considered. I understand why they did what they did too. I read the rating guidelines. Basically it says NOT to rate scar pain unless the pain is reported as happening during the exam. It says not to rate it 10% based on veteran complaints only since it's subjective evidence. Even though pain at anytime is really subjective evidence. For the hernia it's still sounding like mentioning it during appeal for scar effective date is a good idea. Best case scenario RO grants it and worse case that should be informal claim and lock in a effective date.

Thanks again really appreciate it. Glad to have confirmation I'm going about this the right way.

This is from BVA. My SSOC says they only considered the new exam and not any of the information the decision says they needed to consider. Also I'm assuming my hernia would be considered soft tissue damage since the tissue holding muscle in no longer does. So I'm thinking that means hernia should be added with a 2013 effective date? Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right wrist surgical scar, status post tendosynovectomy, is remanded. The Veteran was most recently afforded a VA scar examination in February 2015. The examination report, however, does not include all necessary information to properly rate the Veteran’s right wrist scarring under the appropriate criteria. For example, only the length of his right wrist scar was provided and no information was given as to whether there was any underlying soft tissue damage. Therefore, a new examination is necessary to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of the Veteran’s service-connected right wrist scar. Also, the evidence indicates that there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. The most recent VA treatment records in the claims file are from the VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Canandaigua, New York/VA outpatient clinic (VAOPC) in Rochester, New York and are dated to August 2017. Any VA treatment records are within VA’s constructive possession, and must be obtained regardless of their relevance as long as they are sufficiently identified. Sullivan v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 786, 793 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (VA has a duty to assist in obtaining sufficiently identified VA medical records regardless of their relevance). See also Jones v. Wilkie, 918 F.3d 922 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (confirming the holding in Sullivan). A remand is required to allow VA to obtain them. Lastly, following a February 2016 supplemental statement of the case, additional evidence has been associated with the Veteran’s claims file by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) that is relevant to the issue of entitlement to a higher initial rating for the service-connected right wrist scar. This evidence includes VA treatment records from the VAMC in Canandaigua, New York/VAOPC in Rochester, New York dated from December 2015 to August 2017. This relevant evidence has not been considered by the AOJ and no waiver of initial AOJ consideration of this evidence has been received. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (c). Hence, the Board is required to remand the right wrist scar issue for issuance of the necessary supplemental statement of the case. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s outstanding VA treatment records from the VAMC in Canandaigua, New York/VAOPC in Rochester, New York for the period since August 2017; and all such relevant records from any other sufficiently identified VA facility. 2. After all efforts have been exhausted to obtain and associate with the claims file any additional treatment records, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected right wrist scarring. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. Specifically, the examiner should report the nature and severity of any right wrist scarring, to include whether any scar causes any limited motion or loss of function. Each scar size (including BOTH scar length and width) and whether any scar is superficial, deep, associated with underlying soft tissue damage, nonlinear, unstable, or painful should also be noted. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to the service-connected right wrist scarring alone and discuss the effect of the disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. The examiner must provide reasons for any opinion given. 3. After the above development, and any additionally indicated development, has been completed, readjudicate the remaining issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, send the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case that considers all additional relevant evidence (including the VA treatment records from the VAMC in Canandaigua, New York/VAOPC in Rochester, New York dated from December 2015 to August 2017, and all additional relevant evidence received since the February 2016 supplemental statement of the case) and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review.

Ok so even though I never technically filed for hernia should I just include it in my appeal for the scar effective date? Like I said too the examiner said she would note hernia. I don't have access online to exam notes though since it was through a 3rd party VA contracted with.

I know 100% my records complain of pain in those areas. In fact my BVA decision pointed out last time they didn't even consider relevant medical records they had. I just double checked rating decision I got today and the only evidence they considered was the exam this month. So that shows they didn't even follow the remand instructions. So I guess I have that going for me. Any clue on the hernia? Should that have come up during a these exams or do I need to file a new claim for it? The hernia wasn't called a hernia in service but the manifestation was there in service. Only a few years ago was hernia confirmed during a biopsy of site to see why I still had bulge.

Hello, I would really appreciate some guidance on next steps. Please let me know if I forget any useful information. I had 2 items go to the BVA. I had a claim for tenosynovitis of right hand/wrist/forearm which was originally denied connection and the other issue was for scar. The BVA said my tenosynovitis was service connected so that was taken care of. The scar was remanded because of a incomplete c&p exam. Pretty sure when I filed NOD I also said I did not agree with the exam because I complained of scar pain and the examiner never mentioned it at all. So my initial rating for scar was 0%. Like I said I filed NOD after initial 0% assignment. Couple weeks back they gave me another c&p exam like the BVA ordered. This time the examiner actually wrote down that I complained of pain so they rated me at 10%. However they changed my effective date from 2013 to Oct this year because the previous exam didn't mention pain I'm obviously going to appeal this again but what do I say? What's best way to go about it? Second part of question is about VA duty to assist. I had no idea there was a rating possible for hernias. Because of the surgery for tenosynovitis which is service connected and where the scar is which is service connected I have a hernia where muscle bulges through and raises the skin. That hernia has always been there. Should the VA have included that? Any examiner can see it clearly when looking at forearm and my last c&p examiner for scar said she would note it. Can I get that connected with a effective date of 2013 which is when the tenosynovitis is and my original 0% scar was?

Hello, I was hoping to get a second opinion on a potential claim. While in service I had a radical tenosynovectomy which is service connected. I am also service connected for the scar from said surgery. That surgery caused a hernia on my forearm. The size of muscle coming through is about 2.5 inches long by about 1 inch wide. I was wondering if this should be a pretty straight forward claim or what I might need to consider or prepare for? I believe this claim would fall under 38 CFR § 4.73, Schedule of Ratings – Muscle Injuries, Diagnostic Code 5326. Seems pretty straight forward to me but again it's the VA and there always seems to be something to complicate things. Thanks

Thank you, I appreciate your time. I'll look into it more but your explanation makes sense in the sense of how VA operates.

@GBArmy It doesn't restrict it I'm the sense that if I don't do fine motor detail I'm good. However fine motor detail and lots of use causes the range of motion die to pain to pretty much make hand unusable until I stop and rub it and give it 20 minutes or so to be better. It's caused me to drop parts where I work worth a lot of money. @broncovet I had tenosynovitis in service. They did surgery which caused the hernia and scar in question. I originally filed for forearm condition, wrist condition, hand condition and thumb condition since those were all the areas effected. They were lumped together. Initially the tenosynovitis was denied but granted 0% for scar. I have CP exam coming up for scar and BVA granted me SC for the tenosynovitis. My RO rated the tenosynovitis at 10% for my elbow. At my CP exam for tenosynovitis over 5 years ago I said it would sometimes get worse when I bent my elbow. The RO used the 5 year old exam for my rating decision. They didn't consider all my complaints about hand and wrist at all and my hernia is huge and you can't miss it when looking at forearm.

Hello, I have a CP exam coming up soon for my dispute over 0% rating for scar. Is it possible to get 10% effective the time of scar rating for a hernia? I have a large forearm hernia below scar that I was told can't really be fixed. Also what is a painful scar? After surgery there was 1 obvious adhesion at wrist that surgeon had to break by bending wrist back. I think I have more at base of thumb because it's enlarged and restricts motion but not enough to be rated under range of motion. However repeated use does cause pain where the surgery was and adhesions are scar tissue. Thanks

Thanks guys. I saw a neurologist a few months back because I had a couple instances of seeing horizontal lines across vision. I think he said he thought it was an optical migraine of that's a thing. In service like I think I said before I noted on exit form that I was getting I think 2 headaches a day for few months. My RO confuses me a lot. I know I should probably start new topic but here is another issue I ran into. I filed for service connection for a forearm/wrist/hand/thumb a long time ago. I had swelling in forearm 3 years into service. They did surgery and cut into my hand and wrist as well. Turned out to be dense fibrosis and now I have a hernia there and pain and weakness in hand when I use it a lot. They denied me saying since I broke my arm in 6 grade it was a natural progression. I had VA orthopedic surgeon say he didn't think the broken arm and condition in service were related because of a 10 year difference in injury and symptoms. VA said the PA who did CP exam was more credible. BVA agreed with me and granted service connection. My RO rated me at 10% because during CP exam I said bending my elbow would sometimes cause pain too. So I'm rated at 10% for my elbow when surgery was on forearm into hand. Completely ignoring all my hand and wrist issues. To top it off before granting me SC they had given me 0% for the surgical scar. I appealed that and BVA said they needed to do another exam because I wasn't given a proper one so that issue was remanded. So when my RO gave me 10% for elbow they gave me 0% again for the same scar I had at 0% which was remanded for improper exam which I still haven't had yet. So I have 0% twice for same thing. It's definitely frustrating to say the least.

Thank you both. I know I put it on my exit medical form about headaches. I don't know if it's documented in there but after a run I had a bad migraine with radiating pain to left arm that didn't go away until next day. I told person checking me in at base hospital for a stress test that was ordered for unrelated issue and got yelled at more not saying anything when it happened. I just don't know why they didn't give me 0% rating? I've had issues with them getting really bad but I fight through it. Heck the day I got out of hospital for possible sepsis I went to work after taking shower. That's after 3 days of not eating or being allowed to walk and my job consists of me standing all day and walking. That may be my problem as well as I push myself to hard. I'll definitely file NOD and see what happens.