Jump to content
  • Advertisemnt

  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims

    questions-001@3x.png

    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
     
  • Ads

  • Most Common VA Disabilities Claimed for Compensation:   

    tinnitus-005.pngptsd-005.pnglumbosacral-005.pngscars-005.pnglimitation-flexion-knee-005.pngdiabetes-005.pnglimitation-motion-ankle-005.pngparalysis-005.pngdegenerative-arthitis-spine-005.pngtbi-traumatic-brain-injury-005.png

  • Advertisemnt

  • VA Watchdog

  • Advertisemnt

  • Ads

  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

  • Searches Community Forums, Blog and more

  • Ad Free Subscription.jpgOne Time Financial Gift.jpg

    Subscriptions and Gifts are NOT Tax Deductible. HadIt.com is NOT a Non Profit.

  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
carlie

Bva Decision Date 07/2011 - Cue Granted Back To 1969

Question

BVA - Decision Date: 07/21/11

CUE granted back to 1969

http://www.va.gov/ve...es3/1127253.txt

FINDINGS OF FACT

3. The March 1970 rating decision granting service connection for amputation, terminal interphalangeal joint, right ring finger and limitation of extension to 10 degrees distal interphalangeal joint, right middle finger, residuals of shell fragment wound and assigning a noncompensable evaluation contained CUE in that it failed to identify and apply any evaluation criteria in compliance with the law extant at the time.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4. The March 1970 rating decision contained CUE pertaining to assignment of a noncompensable evaluation for amputation, terminal interphalangeal joint, right ring finger and limitation of extension to 10 degrees distal interphalangeal joint, right middle finger, residuals of shell fragment wound; a 10 percent evaluation is warranted from December 16, 1969. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5109A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.27, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5155 and 5223 (1970); 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) (2010).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran contends that the March 1970 rating decision contains CUE because the RO, in assigning an evaluation for the newly service connected right hand disability, did not properly identify the Diagnostic Code applied or the criteria used in assigning an evaluation and, further, applied an incorrect standard.

Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the facts presented

to VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) at 38 C.F.R. Part 4.

The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1. Regulations extant at the time of the decision provided, as they do now, that when an unlisted disability is encountered, a Diagnostic Code is "built" by using the first two digits of the group of Codes assigned to the most closely associated body system and adding "99" to identify the rating as one by analogy. Such general Codes were intended to be combined with a Code for a specific listed condition to clearly identify the actual criteria applied, as in "5299-5155." 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.20, 4.27 (1970).

The Codesheet associated with the March 1970 rating lists the right hand disability under Code 5299 only. There is no indication of which Code was relied upon by analogy to assign the noncompensable evaluation, nor are any criteria listed in the discussion narrative of the rating decision. The Board must therefore conclude that the RO made an independent judgment, without regard to any objective standard or the Rating Schedule, as to how disabling the Veteran's right hand disability was.

As there is no indication that the Rating Schedule was applied, as was required by law and regulation, the Board has no choice but to find that the assignment of a noncompensable evaluation was CUE. This is not merely disagreement with the weighing of evidence or evaluation of facts; the RO cannot be found to have actually applied the law as required. Importantly, this finding means that the Board is assigning the initial evaluation of the right hand disability without regard to that assigned by the RO in 1970; that decision, in the absence of an objective standard or criteria, is entitled to no deference.

At the time of the March 1970 rating decision and under current regulations, the rating schedule provided a 10 percent evaluation for amputation of the ring finger without metacarpal resection, at the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint or proximal thereto. A 20 percent evaluation was assigned for metacarpal resection with more than half the bone lost. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Code 5155 (1970). Other Codes provided evaluations for impairment of combinations of fingers, however, they are not applicable here. Although the ring and middle fingers were affected by the shrapnel wound of the right hand, the limitation of motion of the middle finger was noted by doctors in 1969 and 1970 to be limited to a loss of 10 degrees motion at the tip of the finger. The Veteran could still make a fist, meaning his middle finger could move to within one inch of the palm. By regulation, this was not considered a disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Codes 5220 to 5223, Note (a) (1970).

Medical evidence of record at the time of the 1970 rating decision, including service treatment records and a February 1970 VA examination, demonstrated that the Veteran had sustained a traumatic amputation of the distal phalange of the right ring finger. In other words, the tip of the ring finger from the last joint to the tip was removed. In May 1969, the Veteran complained of pain in the amputation stump, and a revision of the amputation stump was performed; the VA examiner referred to this as a severing of the affected nerve. The in-service doctor stated that the amputation site, prior to revision was at the "proximal portion of the distal" phalange. In 1970, the level was described as "through the distal interphalangeal [DIP] joint area." Subsequent medical records and examinations refer to a missing distal phalange.

A 10 percent evaluation is warranted under Code 5155, for the partial amputation of the right ring finger. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Code 5155 (1970). The physical descriptions of the amputation indicate that, although the site was generally in the area of the DIP, and not PIP joint, the initial injury, surgical repair, and subsequent revision were to the proximal side of the DIP joint. The actual amputation site appears to be between the DIP and PIP joints. Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the disability picture presented most closely approximates that of amputation at the PIP joint as all the evidence clearly reflects that some portion of the proximal phalange was affected by the injury and treatment.

ORDER

The claim of CUE in a March 1970 RO decision which denied entitlement to a compensable rating for the award of service connection for amputation, terminal interphalangeal joint, right ring finger and limitation of extension to 10 degrees distal interphalangeal joint, right middle finger, residuals of shell fragment wound is granted, and a 10 percent evaluation is assigned effective from December 16, 1969.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

0 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

There have been no answers to this question yet

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Our picks

    • Type 1 Diabetes recent onset!
      I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes in September 2017 OUT OF NOWHERE.

      i am a Navy Reservist and deployed in later 2009 to mid 2010 and again later 2014 to mid 2015; had a 2 year recall between those deployments.  

      Only healthcare received since commissioning in 2008 was from the Navy and no issues EVER.

      insulin dependent and have dietary restrictions and in a non deployable status.

      VA denied initial claim due to Type 1 not showing on active duty and now appealing.

      Anyone with successful experience getting a rating with my circumstances?  I live in Upstate New York.
      • 9 replies
    • Agent Orange Kadena Afb Okinawa
      I am looking for anyone who was on Kadena AFB, Okinawa or .Chanute AFB, IL. My dad was there from Oct. 68-April 70. He has ichemic heart disease, diabetes which has resulted in the amputation of his right leg below the knee and peripheral neuropathy. We were denied in 2002 AMVETS filed a claim on his behalf for heart condition, diabetes and back problems. I refiled in December 2011 and have just received the claim statements and medical release forms. I am familiar with filling out this paper work because my husband is a combat veteran of Iraqi Freedom. I have been reading articles from the Japan times and I am a member of the Agent Orange Okinawa facebook page. Another thing that helps make my dad's case is that he was on Chanute AFB, IL and it is on the EPA Superfund list and has PCBs/Pesticides and Dioxins/Furans listed as ground and water contaminants. I welcome any advice, tips or articles that I may have missed in my own research.
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • CBO Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028 Published Dec 2018
      CBO Options for Reducing the Deficit: 2019 to 2028 - This CBO Report has been making the news. This post includes parts relevant to veterans. Nothing has been decided as of yet and some seem very unlikely but you never know. Forewarned is Forearmed.

       

      https://www.hadit.com/cbo-options-for-reducing-the-deficit-2019-to-2028-published-dec-2018/
      • 8 replies
    • 2019 Veterans Benefits
      State Benefits, Space A and More ... https://www.hadit.com/2019-changes-to-veterans-benefits-state-and-federal/
      • 2 replies
    • Appeal granted and closed.
      My appeal was granted and closed on November 9.  I got an unofficial notification from the DAV on November 15 stating "appeal granted with an evaluation of 30%" which is great!  My question is this:  How long until I get the official notification from the va? Nothing on ebennies has updated since the appeal closed. Appeal is now in historical and just says complete and at originating va office. I understand no one knows va timelines to a tee but a general timeline would be great.  Thank you all! Hope you have a Merry Christmas!

       

      Edit:  This was my first time appealing and it was a VBA grant. 
        • Like
      • 6 replies
  • Ads

  • Popular Contributors

  • Ad

  • Latest News
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

{terms] and Guidelines