Schafrath v. Derwinski: A Landmark Case for Veterans' Disability Ratings
The 1991 case of Schafrath v. Derwinski set important precedents for protecting veterans' rights in the disability rating process, especially regarding consideration of pain and procedural requirements for rating reductions. Let's break down the key points and implications of this landmark case.
Background
Roger J. Schafrath, a Navy veteran, appealed the reduction of his disability rating for a right elbow condition from 10% to 0%. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) had upheld the rating reduction based on a medical exam showing full range of motion in the elbow.
Key Errors in the BVA Decision
The Court found several critical errors in the BVA's decision:
- Failure to apply 38 C.F.R. § 4.40, which allows for ratings based on functional loss due to pain
- Failure to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the veteran's claims of disabling pain
- Failure to obtain requested VA medical records
- Failure to consider the full history of the disability
- Failure to conduct a thorough contemporary medical examination
Implications for Veterans
This case established several important principles:
- Pain and functional loss must be considered: Even if range of motion appears normal, pain and its impact on function must be evaluated when assessing disabilities.
- VA's duty to assist: The VA has a duty to assist veterans by obtaining relevant medical records and providing thorough examinations.
- Importance of disability history: Rating reductions require careful consideration of the entire history of the disability, not just a single exam.
- Procedural requirements: The VA must follow all applicable regulations when reducing ratings, especially for "stabilized" ratings in effect for 5+ years.
- Invalidation of improper reductions: If proper procedures are not followed, rating reductions can be invalidated and prior ratings reinstated.
- Right to challenge: Veterans have the right to challenge improper rating reductions and have them reversed if regulations were not followed.
The Court's Decision
The Court ruled the BVA decision was "void ab initio" (invalid from the beginning) due to not following proper regulations. They reversed the BVA decision and ordered reinstatement of the 10% rating retroactive to the date of reduction.
Conclusion
Schafrath v. Derwinski reinforced the importance of thorough evaluations, consideration of pain, and adherence to proper procedures in veterans' disability ratings. It remains a crucial precedent in protecting veterans' rights within the VA system. For veterans navigating the claims process, this case underscores the importance of documenting pain and functional limitations, even when range of motion appears normal. It also highlights the value of understanding VA regulations and procedures to ensure fair treatment in the disability rating process.