I just read a BVA appeal case for SMC that was denied, but the vet's severe back problem affected his legs so that he could not walk. The SMC criteria says "loss or loss of use of a foot." He was denied SMC because he had not lost use of his foot. The explanation was, he had lost use of his legs, not his feet.
Does this excerpt about the bilateral factor negate that opinion? From this statement, I infer that "lower extremities as a whole" are thighs, legs, and feet.
§ 4.26 Bilateral factor.
. . .
(a) The use of the terms “arms” and “legs” is not intended to distinguish between the arm, forearm and hand, or the thigh, leg, and foot, but relates to the upper extremities and lower extremities as a whole. . . .
Question
Guest Morgan
I just read a BVA appeal case for SMC that was denied, but the vet's severe back problem affected his legs so that he could not walk. The SMC criteria says "loss or loss of use of a foot." He was denied SMC because he had not lost use of his foot. The explanation was, he had lost use of his legs, not his feet.
Does this excerpt about the bilateral factor negate that opinion? From this statement, I infer that "lower extremities as a whole" are thighs, legs, and feet.
§ 4.26 Bilateral factor.
. . .
(a) The use of the terms “arms” and “legs” is not intended to distinguish between the arm, forearm and hand, or the thigh, leg, and foot, but relates to the upper extremities and lower extremities as a whole. . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Top Posters For This Question
2
Popular Days
Oct 30
2
Oct 29
1
Oct 31
1
Top Posters For This Question
wallyg 2 posts
Popular Days
Oct 30 2005
2 posts
Oct 29 2005
1 post
Oct 31 2005
1 post
3 answers to this question
Recommended Posts