ANKLE IMPAIRMENT OF

THOMAS L. ENGLISH · 2026 · Case ID: A26000574

GRANTED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Marine Corps from June 2002 to June 2007, appeals the denial of service connection for several conditions and seeks increased ratings for his knee conditions. The veteran claimed service connection for a left ankle condition, right ankle pain, bilateral hip pain, lower back pain, a neck condition, and a right shoulder condition. He also sought increased ratings for his right and left knee conditions, effective December 21, 2023. The Board granted service connection for the left ankle, right ankle pain, bilateral hip pain, lower back pain, neck condition, and right shoulder condition, finding that the evidence, including private medical opinions and lay statements, supported a causal relationship to service. For the right and left knee conditions, the Board granted an increased rating of 10 percent for each, based on painful flexion causing functional loss, citing 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 and Diagnostic Code 5260. The Board found that higher ratings were not warranted due to insufficient evidence of further limitation or instability. The veteran's buddy statement and private orthopedist's opinion were key in establishing service connection for the left ankle, while private medical opinions were crucial for the right ankle, hips, back, neck, and right shoulder. The Board found the veteran and his fellow servicemember credible regarding the left ankle injury and the veteran credible regarding his neck condition.

Rationale

Evidence of in-service injury during basic training.; Buddy statement corroborates injury and ongoing symptoms.; Private orthopedist opinion provided nexus and rationale.; Veteran and fellow servicemember found credible.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250401-533928

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26000574
Decision Date: 01/05/26 Archive Date: 01/05/26

DOCKET NO. 250401-533928
DATE: January 5, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a left ankle condition is granted.

Service connection for right ankle pain is granted.

Service connection for bilateral hip pain is granted.

Service connection for lower back pain is granted.

Service connection for a neck condition is granted.

Service connection for a right shoulder condition is granted.

From December 21, 2023, an increased 10 percent rating is warranted for a right knee condition.

From December 21, 2023, an increased 10 percent rating is warranted for a left knee condition.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's left ankle condition is causally related to service.?

2. The probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's right ankle pain is causally related to service.?

3. The probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's bilateral hip pain is causally related to service.?

4. The probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's back pain is causally related to his service-connected bilateral knee condition.?

5. The probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's neck condition is causally related to service.?

6. The probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's right shoulder condition is causally related to his service-connected left shoulder condition.?

7. During the period on appeal, the Veteran had painful flexion of the right knee causing functional loss.

8. During the period on appeal, the Veteran had painful flexion of the left knee causing functional loss.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for a left ankle condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for right ankle pain have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hip pain have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for lower back pain have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for a neck condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for a right shoulder condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. From December 21, 2023, the criteria for a rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for a right knee disorder (limited flexion/functional loss) are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5260.

8. From December 21, 2023, the criteria for a rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for a left knee disorder (limited flexion/functional loss) are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, DC 5260.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from June 2002 to June 2007.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2024 decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the April 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (
§§ 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, DC 5260.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from June 2002 to June 2007.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2024 decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the April 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2024 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303.

1. Service connection for a left ankle condition is granted.

Legal Criteria

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of the matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant; however, if the evidence of record is either persuasively for or persuasively against the claim, then the benefit-of-the-doubt rule no longer applies and the claim is instead adjudicated in accordance with the evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Factual Background

The Veteran reported that he sustained a left ankle injury during service after being thrown against the wall by his drill sergeant during basic training.

The Veteran submitted a buddy statement from a fellow servicemember who reported that the Veteran sustained a left ankle injury during service. The servicemember reported that he witnessed the Veteran walking with a limp and reporting pain and swelling following the ankle injury. The servicemember stated that this lasted throughout the remainder of boot camp and seemed to be chronic, as he would complain of pain in that ankle even years later.

The Veteran submitted a private medical opinion from an orthopedist who indicated that he had a diagnosis of a well-corticated ossific fragment at the talonavicular joint, which is chronic. The orthopedist opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right ankle condition is related to military service. As a rationale, the orthopedist explained that according to medical literature, acute ankle sprains are among the most common musculoskeletal injuries and up to 70 percent of individuals who sustain an acute ankle sprain may develop residual physical disability, which may include chronic ankle instability. The orthopedist noted that the Veteran's buddy statement corroborates his historical accounting of the left ankle injury developing during boot camp, related to trauma and pain in the left ankle during and following boot camp.

Analysis

The record indicates that the Veteran has a diagnosis of a left ankle sprain.

What remains for consideration is whether the Veteran's left ankle condition is causally related to service.?

The Board finds the Veteran and the fellow servicemember competent and credible to report that he experienced left ankle pain and instability following an injury during service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The Board assigns probative value to the opinion of the private orthopedist that the Veteran's left ankle condition is causally related to service because they supported their opinion with a rationale.

Considering the above and the lack of a negative nexus opinion, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's left ankle condition is causally related to service.?

As such, service connection is granted.?

2. Service connection for right ankle pain is granted.

Factual Background

The Veteran reports that he began to have
he experienced left ankle pain and instability following an injury during service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, (Fed. Cir. 2007).

As such, service connection is granted.?

2. Service connection for right ankle pain is granted.

Factual Background

The Veteran reports that he began to have pain in his right ankle after he returned from Iraq. The Veteran does not recall any specific type of injury during his deployment.

The Veteran submitted a private medical opinion from his orthopedist, who indicated that he has a diagnosis of right ankle pain with weakness and instability. The orthopedist opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right ankle condition is causally related to service.

As a rationale, the orthopedist explained that there is no current evidence based upon history, physical examination, or diagnostic radiographic testing to explain the etiology of his chronic right ankle pain condition with regard to a mechanism of injury that would have led to chronic pain lasting for years. The orthopedist noted that the incidental osteophyte formation and central talar OCD findings are insignificant and most likely would not account for the level of pain and instability noted in the right ankle.

Analysis

At the onset, there is evidence of record that suggests that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of a right ankle condition, which is essential?for?establishing a current disability. However, despite the lack of a formal diagnosis,?pain?alone may constitute disability, even without an identifiable underlying pathology, if the?pain?reached the level of a functional impairment. Saunders v. Wilkie,?886 F.3d 1356?(Fed. Cir. 2018).?

Here, the Veteran has reported that he has right ankle pain. The orthopedist also indicated that the Veteran reports right ankle pain. The Board finds that the persuasive evidence of record supports that there is functional impairment from the Veteran's right ankle pain, which constitutes a disability as consistent with Saunders. Thus, the first element for establishing service connection has been satisfied.?

What remains for consideration is whether the Veteran's right foot pain is causally related to service.

The Board assigns probative value to the opinion of the orthopedist that the Veteran's right ankle pain is causally related to service because they supported their opinion with a rationale.

Considering the above, and the lack of a negative nexus opinion, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's right ankle pain is causally related to service.?

As such, service connection is granted.?

3. Service connection for bilateral hip pain is granted.

Factual Background

The Veteran reports that he began to get pain in both of his hips after returning from Iraq. The Veteran does not recall any specific injuries to his hips as it was a slow progression of pain. The Veteran reports that he now has pain in both of his hips after standing for long periods of time or attempting to do any type of high-impact activity like jumping or running. The Veteran further reports that he has to sway back and forth, intermittently putting weight on each leg, to stand for short periods of time, and that crossing his legs is painful.

The Veteran submitted a private medical opinion from his orthopedist, who indicated that he has a diagnosis of bilateral hip pain. The orthopedist opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral hip pain is causally related to service.

Analysis

At the onset, there is evidence of record that suggests that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of a bilateral hip condition, which is essential?for?establishing a current disability. However, despite the lack of a formal diagnosis,?pain?alone may constitute disability, even without an identifiable underlying pathology, if the?pain?reached the level of a functional impairment. Saunders supra.

Here, the Veteran has reported that he has bilateral hip pain. The orthopedist also indicated that the Veteran reports bilateral hip pain. The Board finds that the persuasive evidence of record supports that there is functional impairment from the Veteran's bilateral hip pain, which constitutes a disability as consistent with Saunders. Thus, the first element
lasting for years.

Analysis

What remains for consideration is whether the Veteran's bilateral hip pain is causally related to service.

The Board assigns probative value to the opinion of the orthopedist that the Veteran's bilateral hip pain is causally related to service because they supported their opinion with a rationale.

Considering the above, and the lack of a negative nexus opinion, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's bilateral hip pain is causally related to service.?

As such, service connection is granted.?

4. Service connection for lower back pain is granted.

Legal Criteria

Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Secondary service connection generally requires evidence showing (1) a current disability; (2) a service-connected disability; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the service-connected disability. Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509 (1998).

Factual Background

The Veteran reported that he began to have pain in his lower back after returning from Iraq. The Veteran noted that part of their training and duties involved carrying and loading heavy equipment. The Veteran further noted that he had to carry heavy rucksacks during service. The Veteran explained that he has had lower back pain since exiting from service.

The Veteran submitted a private medical opinion for an orthopedist who explained that the Veteran reports lower back pain. The orthopedist opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's lower back condition is secondary to his service-connected bilateral knee condition. The orthopedist noted that the medical literature documents that when a person has pain in the knees, there is an alteration in gait pattern, posture changes, and compensatory muscle changes in the low back musculature, leading to lower back pain. The orthopedist explained that bilateral knee pain can potentially lead to lower back pain and lumbar muscle strain through several mechanisms, such as altered walking patterns, posture changes, muscle compensation, and reduced activity.

Analysis

At the onset, there is evidence of record that suggests that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of a back condition, which is essential?for?establishing a current disability. However, despite the lack of a formal diagnosis,?pain?alone may constitute disability, even without an identifiable underlying pathology, if the?pain?reaches the level of a functional impairment. Saunders supra.

Here, the Veteran has reported that he has back pain. The orthopedist also indicated that the Veteran reports back pain. The Board finds that the persuasive evidence of record supports that there is functional impairment from the Veteran's back pain, which constitutes a disability as consistent with Saunders. Thus, the first element for establishing service connection has been satisfied.?

What remains for consideration is whether the Veteran's back pain is causally related to his service-connected bilateral knee condition.

The Board assigns probative value to the opinion of the orthopedist that the Veteran's back pain is causally related to his service-connected bilateral knee condition because they supported their opinion with a rationale.

Considering the above, and the lack of a negative nexus opinion, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's back pain is causally related to his service-connected bilateral knee condition.?

As such, service connection is granted.?

5. Service connection for a neck condition is granted.

Factual Background

The Veteran reports that he had pain in his neck, which began in Iraq. The Veteran notes that he frequently had to wear night-vision goggles mounted on a helmet. The Veteran stated that it was heavy on his head and neck to the point that it forced his chin down to his chest. The Veteran explained that he had to constantly strain and struggle to keep his head in a forward-looking, neutral position due to the helmet weight. The Veteran further explained that his neck muscles would fatigue rapidly once he began to wear this gear and that he would have pain and neck muscle weakness so bad that it was difficult
bilateral knee condition.?

As such, service connection is granted.?

5. Service connection for a neck condition is granted.

Factual Background

The Veteran submitted a private medical opinion from his orthopedist, who indicated that he has a diagnosis of cervical strain and degenerative disc disease. The orthopedist opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's neck condition is causally related to service.

As a rationale, the orthopedist explained that the medical literature documents that wearing military/tactical gear, such as helmets and night-vision goggles, creates compressive forces on the spinal structures and leads to pathophysiological processes that accelerate degenerative changes. Specifically, the increased mass, moment of inertia, and center of gravity shift due to the helmet and head-mounted devices place additional loads on the cervical spine during normal military training and operational activities. The orthopedist concluded that axial loading from helmet and night-vision-goggle weight can accelerate cervical spine degeneration and lead to chronic muscle strain through biomechanical stress and impacts on disc health.

Analysis

The record indicates that the Veteran has a diagnosis of a neck condition.

What remains for consideration is whether the Veteran's neck condition is causally related to service.?

The Board finds the Veteran competent and credible to report that he experienced neck pain and weakness from wearing his helmet and night vision goggles during service. See Jandreau supra.

The Board assigns probative value to the opinion of the private orthopedist that the Veteran's neck condition is causally related to service because they supported their opinion with a rationale and cited medical treatises in support of the opinion.

Considering the above and the lack of a negative nexus opinion, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's neck condition is causally related to service.?

As such, service connection is granted.?

6. Service connection for a right shoulder condition is granted.

Factual Background

The Veteran reports that he began to develop progressive pain in his right shoulder soon after he underwent surgery on the left shoulder. The Veteran stated that he began to exclusively use the right arm for almost all of his activities, as using the left shoulder was too painful. The Veteran noted that over time, the right shoulder began to experience pain as well. ?

The Veteran submitted a private medical opinion from his orthopedist, who indicated that he has a diagnosis of a right shoulder strain. The orthopedist opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's right shoulder strain is causally related to his left shoulder condition.

As a rationale, the orthopedist explained that biomechanical and kinematic literature documents that compensating for one painful or injured shoulder leads to premature muscle fatigue and can increase stress and abnormal loading and movements on the contralateral shoulder joint related to this compensatory mechanism. The orthopedist noted that overcompensation or overuse can cause excessive wear and tear on the unaffected shoulder, increasing the risk of muscle overuse in the unaffected arm. The orthopedist concluded that the Veteran has increased use of the muscles in the right shoulder to compensate for the left shoulder disability and avoid pain, leading to an overuse syndrome of the right shoulder muscles, resulting in a strain of the rotator cuff muscles.

Analysis

The record indicates that the Veteran has a diagnosis of a right shoulder strain. Accordingly, the first element of service connection has been met.

What remains for consideration is whether the Veteran's right shoulder strain is causally related to his service-connected left shoulder condition.

The Board assigns probative value to the opinion of the orthopedist that the Veteran's right shoulder strain is causally related to his service-connected left shoulder condition because they supported their opinion with a rationale.

Considering the above, and the lack of a negative nexus opinion, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran's right shoulder condition is causally related to his service-connected left shoulder condition.?

As such, service connection is granted.?

7. From December 21, 2023, an increased 10 percent rating is warranted for a
of service connection has been met.

What remains for consideration is whether the Veteran's right shoulder strain is causally related to his service-connected left shoulder condition.

As such, service connection is granted.?

7. From December 21, 2023, an increased 10 percent rating is warranted for a right knee condition.

Legal Criteria

Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities. Ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. See?38 U.S.C. § 1155;?38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

DC 5256 provides for a 40 percent rating for unfavorable ankylosis with?knee?in?flexion?between 10 degrees and 20 degrees. A 50 percent rating is provided for unfavorable ankylosis with the?knee?in?flexion?between 20 degrees and 45 degrees. A 60 percent rating is provided for extremely unfavorable ankylosis with the?knee?in?flexion?at an angle of 45 degrees or more.

Under DC 5257, for recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, a 10 percent disability rating is assigned for sprain, incomplete ligament tear, or complete ligament tear causing persistent instability without prescribed assistive device or bracing for ambulation. When addressing knee instability under DC 5257 for the rating criteria prior to February 7, 2021, objective medical evidence is not required or is to be favored over lay evidence. English v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 347, 352 (2018).

A 20 percent rating requires (a) sprain, incomplete ligament tear, or repaired complete ligament tear causing persistent instability; or (b) unrepaired or failed repair of complete ligament tear causing persistent instability. Both require a prescribed assistive device or bracing for ambulation.

A 30 percent rating requires "unrepaired or failed repair of complete ligament tear causing persistent instability" and that a medical provider prescribes both an assistive device and bracing for ambulation. See Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Musculoskeletal System and Muscle Injuries, 85 Fed. Reg. 76453, 76463 (Nov. 30, 2020) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5257).

For DC 5259, symptomatic removal of semilunar cartilage, 10 percent is the highest rating under this diagnostic code.

DC 5260 provides ratings based on?limitation?of?flexion?of the leg. A 10 percent rating is warranted for?flexion?limited?to 45 degrees. A 20 percent rating is warranted for?flexion?limited?to 30 degrees. The maximum 30 percent rating is warranted for?flexion?limited?to 15 degrees.

DC 5261 provides ratings based on?limitation?of extension of the leg. A 10 percent rating is warranted for extension?limited?to 10 degrees. A 20 percent rating is warranted for extension?limited?to 15 degrees. A 30 percent rating is warranted for extension?limited?to 20 degrees. A 40 percent rating is warranted for extension?limited?to 30 degrees. The maximum 50 percent rating is warranted for extension?limited?to 45 degrees.

Under DC 5262, for shin splints in one lower extremity a noncompensable rating is warranted where shin splints have received treatment for less than 12 consecutive months; a 10-percent rating is warranted where shin splints have required treatment for no less than 12 consecutive months, and unresponsive to either shoe orthotics or other conservative treatment; and, a 20-percent rating is warranted where shin splints have required treatment for no less than 12 consecutive months, and unresponsive to either surgery and either shoe orthotics or other conservative treatment.?38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5262 (2021).

For diagnostic codes that are based on?limitation?of motion, VA must consider assigning a higher rating for functional loss, including functional loss due to flare-ups or the factors listed below.?38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4
; a 10-percent rating is warranted where shin splints have required treatment for no less than 12 consecutive months, and unresponsive to either shoe orthotics or other conservative treatment; and, a 20-percent rating is warranted where shin splints have required treatment for no less than 12 consecutive months, and unresponsive to either surgery and either shoe orthotics or other conservative treatment.?38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5262 (2021).

For diagnostic codes that are based on?limitation?of motion, VA must consider assigning a higher rating for functional loss, including functional loss due to flare-ups or the factors listed below.?38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59; see DeLuca v. Brown,?8?Vet. App.?202?(1995). These factors include more or less movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, pain on movement, swelling, and deformity or atrophy of disuse.?38 C.F.R. § 4.45. For diagnostic codes that are based on?limitation?of motion, pain must affect the ability to perform normal working movements with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, or endurance in order to constitute functional loss. Mitchell v. Shinseki,?25?Vet. App.?32?(2011). These rules have been considered in the analysis below.

Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture "more nearly approximates" the required criteria; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See?38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

Factual Background

The Veteran filed his claim for an increased rating for his right knee condition on December 21, 2023.

The Veteran underwent a January 2024 VA examination regarding his right knee disability. The examiner documented the Veteran's right knee flexion to be limited from 0 degrees to 140 degrees and the Veteran's extension to be limited to 0 degrees. Passive range of motion was the same as active range of motion. There was evidence of pain with weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing, which did not result in functional loss. The examiner found that the Veteran's range of motion was not further limited by repeat testing.

The examiner noted that the Veteran was not examined immediately after repeated use over time or during a flare-up, but the procured evidence does not suggest pain, fatigability, weakness, lack of endurance, or incoordination that significantly limit functional ability with repeated use over time or during a flare-up.

The examiner determined that the Veteran did not have joint instability of the right knee. The examiner also noted that the Veteran's right knee does not have ankylosis, semilunar cartilage conditions, a tibia or fibula impairment, or recurrent patellar dislocation.

The Veteran reports that he has dull, aching pain around his kneecaps whenever he participates in any high-impact weight-bearing activity, such as running or jumping. The Veteran further reported that his knees hurt whenever he bends them and he cannot do a full squat because his leg muscles are weak.

Analysis

Considering the facts of this case, the Board finds that a rating of 10 percent, but no higher, under DC 5260 is warranted for the period on appeal for the right knee. The Veteran reported right knee pain with weight-bearing, running, or jumping. The Board acknowledges the Veteran has a flexion range of motion that typically does not warrant a compensable rating. However, section 4.59 provides that, "[w]ith any form of arthritis, painful motion is an important factor of disability. The intent of the schedule is to recognize painful motion with joint or periarticular pathology as productive of disability. It is the intention to recognize actually painful, unstable, or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, as entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint." 38 C.F.R. § 4.59.

Because the Veteran had painful flexion of the right knee, causing functional loss, the Board finds that a 10 percent rating for the Veteran's right knee condition is granted.

The Board finds that a still higher 20 percent rating is not warranted for the Veteran's right knee condition under DC 5260, as the probative evidence does not support a finding that the flexion of the Veteran's right knee is limited to 30 degrees, even when accounting for flare-ups and repeated use over time.

The Board also finds that the Veteran is not entitled to a separate rating under DC 5261 for limitation of extension because the probative evidence of record does not indicate that the Veteran's extension was limited to 10 degrees, even when accounting for repetitive use
had painful flexion of the right knee, causing functional loss, the Board finds that a 10 percent rating for the Veteran's right knee condition is granted.

Additionally, the probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has ankylosis, recurrent subluxation or instability, a semilunar condition, nonunion of the tibia and fibula, or genu recurvatum and thus the Veteran is not eligible for separate compensable ratings for his right knee under DC 5256, 5257, 5258, 5262, or 5263.

8. From December 21, 2023, an increased 10 percent is warranted for a left knee condition.

Factual Background

The Veteran filed his claim for an increased rating for his left knee condition on December 21, 2023.

The Veteran underwent a January 2024 VA examination regarding his left knee disability. The examiner documented the Veteran's left knee flexion to be limited from 0 degrees to 135 degrees and the Veteran's extension to be limited to 0 degrees. Passive range of motion was the same as active range of motion. There was evidence of pain with weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing, which did not result in functional loss. The examiner found that the Veteran's range of motion was not further limited by repeat testing.

The examiner determined that the Veteran did not have joint instability of the left knee. The examiner also noted that the Veteran's left knee does not have ankylosis, semilunar cartilage conditions, a tibia or fibula impairment, or recurrent patellar dislocation.

The Veteran reports that he has dull aching pain around his kneecaps whenever he participates in any type of high-impact weight-bearing activity, such as running or jumping. The Veteran further reported that his knees hurt whenever he bends them and he cannot do a full squat because his leg muscles are weak.

Analysis

Considering the facts of this case, the Board finds that a rating of 10 percent, but no higher, under DC 5260 is warranted for the period on appeal for the left knee. As the Veteran reported pain in his left knee with weight-bearing, running, or jumping. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.59.

Because the Veteran had painful flexion of the left knee, causing functional loss, the Board finds that a 10 percent rating for the Veteran's left knee condition is granted.

The Board finds that a still higher 20 percent rating is not warranted for the Veteran's left knee condition under DC 5260, as the probative evidence does not support a finding that the flexion of the Veteran's left knee is limited to 30 degrees, even when accounting for flare-ups and repeated use over time.

Additionally, the probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has ankylosis, recurrent subluxation or instability, a semilunar condition, nonunion of the tibia and fibula, or genu recurvatum and thus the Veteran is not eligible for separate compensable ratings for his left knee under DC 5256, 5257, 5258, 5262, or 5263.

Thomas L. English

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Bahus, Alexander

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.

and fibula, or genu recurvatum and thus the Veteran is not eligible for separate compensable ratings for his left knee under DC 5256, 5257, 5258, 5262, or 5263.

Thomas L. English

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Bahus, Alexander

Analyze in VA Law Explorer