ALLERGIC OR VASOMOTOR RHINITIS

THOMAS H. O'SHAY · 2026 · Case ID: 26005123

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from February 1999 to July 2014, appeals the denial of a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis prior to May 3, 2023. The case has a complex procedural history involving multiple remands and appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) concerning the adequacy of VA's duty to assist and the proper adjudication of the allergic rhinitis claim. The Board previously denied a higher rating for allergic rhinitis, but the CAVC remanded the issue multiple times. The primary medical evidence includes VA examinations from December 2014, February 2016, May 2023, and a retrospective opinion from March 2026. The December 2014 and February 2016 examinations found no objective evidence of nasal obstruction or hypertrophy meeting compensable criteria. The May 2023 examination noted these findings, but a March 2026 VA examiner concluded that the evidence did not support physical obstruction or hypertrophy prior to May 3, 2023, stating that any earlier progression would be speculative without further documentation. The Board found the medical evidence, particularly the VA examinations and the March 2026 opinion, more probative than the veteran's lay statements of worsening symptoms. The Board denied entitlement to a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis prior to May 3, 2023, finding the criteria were not met.

Rationale

Medical evidence did not show obstruction >50% or complete obstruction on one side prior to May 3, 2023.; March 2026 VA examiner stated earlier progression would be speculative without further documentation.; Veteran's lay statements of increased symptoms were less probative than medical findings.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Diagnostic Code

6522

Docket No.

16-10 520

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26005123
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 16-10 520
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to a compensable rating prior to May 3, 2023, for allergic rhinitis is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

Prior to May 3, 2023, the Veteran's allergic rhinitis was not manifested by greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides, complete obstruction on one side, or polyps.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for a compensable disability rating for allergic rhinitis prior to May 3, 2023, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.655, 4.97, Diagnostic Code (DC) 6522.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1999 to July 2014.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

1. Entitlement to a compensable rating prior to May 3, 2023, for allergic rhinitis is denied.

By way of history, the January 2015 rating decision, in pertinent part, denied service connection for a left knee disorder and granted service connection and noncompensable (0 percent) ratings for allergic rhinitis and obstructive sleep apnea, effective August 1, 2014.

In April 2016, while the current appeal was pending, the RO amended the characterization of the Veteran's sleep apnea disability to include status post tonsillectomy and uvulopalatopharyngoplasty (UPPP) and history of external valve collapse with deformity of the nose (OSA) and increased the rating to 30 percent, effective February 3, 2016.

In November 2019, the Board, among other things, denied entitlement to a higher ratings for allergic rhinitis and obstructive sleep apnea. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).

In October 2020, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) filed by the parties to the appeal, thereby vacating the Board's decision and remanding the issues for readjudication. In pertinent part, the October 2020 JMR indicated that, in a February 29, 2016, statement, the Veteran identified receiving treatment at the VA medical centers in Las Vegas and Columbia. While the record contains some medical records from both facilities, these appear to be limited in scope and the record does not appear to contain any general request for medical records from either facility. Therefore, the Board erred by not providing a statement of reasons or bases adequately explaining how VA satisfied its duty to assist in light of Veteran's self-identified medical treatment at VA medical centers and the lack of any records request reflecting an effort to obtain records.

Consequently, upon the case's return to the Board, the Board remanded the case in April 2021 to, in pertinent part, obtain pertinent treatment records, notably those from VA facilities located in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Columbia, South Carolina.

In an August 2021 Board decision, the Board indicated that the RO received a response from the VA Medical Center and VA Joint Legacy Viewer for Veteran Treatment Records stating that there were "no records available that were not already of record." In a May 2021 final attempt letter, the RO informed the Veteran of the actions it took and explained that the VA treatment records could not be located and therefore were unavailable for review. Further, the Board found that all efforts to obtain these records were exhausted, and further attempts would be futile. The Board indicated that the Veteran was informed that he could submit any relevant documents in his possession to the VA, and thereafter, the Veteran's representative responded that there was no additional information or evidence to submit. The Board proceeded to deny the issues of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder; entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for allergic rhinitis; and entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for OSA prior to February 3, 2016, and higher than 30 percent disabling from February 3, 2016.

The Veteran again appealed the Board's decision to the Court. In August 2022, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties to the appeal, vacating, in part, the August 2021 Board decision that denied entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating
thereafter, the Veteran's representative responded that there was no additional information or evidence to submit. The Board proceeded to deny the issues of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder; entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for allergic rhinitis; and entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for OSA prior to February 3, 2016, and higher than 30 percent disabling from February 3, 2016.

Specifically, the August 2022 JMPR indicates that the Board did not address whether the Veteran was provided notice of a rescheduled April 2018 examination for allergic rhinitis and failed to address arguments explicitly raised by the Veteran regarding his claim for an increased rating for OSA prior to February 3, 2016. Regarding allergic rhinitis specifically, the Court indicated that an examination was scheduled to determine whether the Veteran's symptoms of rhinitis reached compensable levels; the Veteran missed the examination and contacted VA to reschedule. A subsequent note indicated that the Veteran was a no-show to the rescheduled examination and that it was cancelled as a result. However, there was no evidence of record indicating that the Veteran was ever mailed notice of the date for the rescheduled examination.

The Veteran did not challenge the Board's denial of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder or a rating in excess of 30 percent from February 3, 2016 for OSA.

In March 2023, the Board remanded the issues of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for allergic rhinitis and entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for OSA prior to February 3, 2016. Specifically, regarding both issues, the Board indicated that there had not been substantial compliance with regard to the April 2021 Board decision remand directives to obtain outstanding VA treatment records, to include those identified by the Veteran from Las Vegas, Nevada, and Columbia South Carolina VA Medical Centers. Regarding allergic rhinitis only, the Board found that the Veteran should be afforded another opportunity to attend a VA examination.

In a June 2023 rating decision, the RO granted a 50 percent rating for OSA, effective August 1, 2014, and a 10 percent rating for allergic rhinitis from May 3, 2023.

In January 2024, the Board denied entitlement to a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis prior to May 3, 2023 and denied entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent thereafter.

The Veteran again appealed the Board's decision to the Court. In August 2025, the Court again granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) filed by the parties to the appeal, vacating, in part, the January 2025 Board decision that denied entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for allergic rhinitis prior to May 3, 2023, and remanding for readjudication consistent with the motion.

The August 2025 JMPR noted that while the Board in January 2024 concluded that there was not enough evidence prior to the May 3, 2023, VA examination, the Board may not "mechanically" assign an effective date as the date of an examination.

This matter was last before the Board in February 2026, when it was remanded for further development.

Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4.

Allergic rhinitis is currently rated as noncompensable (zero percent) under DC 6522. A 10 percent rating is warranted for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis without polyps but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passages on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. Of note, in every case where the requirements for a compensable rating are not met, a zero percent evaluation may be assigned, even if the diagnostic schedule does not provide for such a noncompensable evaluation.

Turning to the medical evidence, a December 2014 VA examination confirmed
Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4.

Turning to the medical evidence, a December 2014 VA examination confirmed a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis but noted that there was no obstruction of the nasal passages greater than 50 percent on both sides, complete obstruction on one side, permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates, nasal polyps, or any granulomatous conditions. The examination notes that the Veteran reported that his sinuses were normal for him and only occurred when the weather changed; the examination notes that the Veteran did not complain of a severe sinus issue, and was not taking any medication at this time. The examiner indicated the Veteran was minimally limited in concentrating and focusing on a task at hand when he was symptomatic; he was able to perform all activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. There was no objective evidence of an external valve collapse on examination.

The Veteran was afforded another VA examination in February 2016, which notes a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. The Veteran reported that his symptoms come and go and had gotten worse. Similar to the previous examination, the examination notes that the Veteran did not have an obstruction of the nasal passages greater than 50 percent on both sides, complete obstruction on one side, permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates, nasal polyps, or any granulomatous conditions. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's allergic rhinitis did not impact his ability to work.

The Veteran was afforded VA examination for his allergic rhinitis on May 3, 2023. The examination notes that the Veteran reported that his disability had progressed to include rhinitis, a constant post-nasal drainage, and pressure behind the eyes. The examination notes that UPPP surgery was done for sleep apnea, but he denied a history of sinus surgeries. The Veteran also denied treatment for sinus infections with antibiotics; he did not use anything daily for his allergies, but used Flonase as needed. The examination notes that the Veteran's allergic rhinitis was manifested by greater than 50% obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to rhinitis and permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates; the Veteran, however, did not have complete obstruction on one side, nasal polyps, or any granulomatous conditions. The examination notes that the Veteran's allergic rhinitis resulted in mild to moderate constant symptoms. His allergic rhinitis impacted his ability to work in that he should avoid working around known offending allergens.

The matter was remanded in February 2026 for a retrospective opinion estimating the severity of the Veteran's allergic rhinitis for the period from August 1, 2014, to May 3, 2023.

In March 2026, a VA examiner stated that the selection of no blockage of over 50 percent and no hypertrophy of nasal turbinates before May 2023 remained appropriate. The examiner explained that the Veteran's medical record showed he had allergic rhinitis and used a nasal spray. The examiner stated that documentation was lacking, showing neither the severity nor any attempt to seek further treatment beyond the as-needed nasal spray. The Veteran reported progressive symptoms, and the May 2023 examination found him to have greater than 50 percent obstruction and permanent hypertrophy of nasal turbinates. Rhinitis is listed in the problem list in a January 2026 treatment record; no physician-prescribed treatment was noted. The February 2016 examination showed no obstruction, polyps, or hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates. Regarding the periods from August 2014 to May 2023, the examiner noted that a review of the Veteran's record showed no evidence of purulent discharge, as this involves thick yellow/green discharge, not typically described as post-nasal drip, and often indicates an acute infectious process. There is no documentation of any debilitating flare-ups. There is no indication of nasal blockage or hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates prior to May 2023. The Veteran's medical record does not support this. A statement of increased nasal discharge and congestion does not indicate that a physical obstruction or hypertrophy was present. These findings are visualized on physical examination, and were not visual
the nasal turbinates. Regarding the periods from August 2014 to May 2023, the examiner noted that a review of the Veteran's record showed no evidence of purulent discharge, as this involves thick yellow/green discharge, not typically described as post-nasal drip, and often indicates an acute infectious process. There is no documentation of any debilitating flare-ups. There is no indication of nasal blockage or hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates prior to May 2023. The Veteran's medical record does not support this. A statement of increased nasal discharge and congestion does not indicate that a physical obstruction or hypertrophy was present. These findings are visualized on physical examination, and were not visualized on the Veteran's until May 2023. Any statements endorsing these findings before May 2023 would involve speculation. The examiner explained that to base any earlier progression on anything beyond speculation, notes from the Veteran's treating provider documenting hypertrophy or obstruction would be required. Therefore, the selection of no blockage of over 50 percent and no hypertrophy of the nasal turbinate before May 2023 remains appropriate.

The Board acknowledges that the mere fact that the examination report documenting an increase in the Veteran's allergic rhinitis symptoms was on the May 3, 2023, examination does not exclude the possibility that his symptoms worsened before that date. However, as the March 2026 VA examiner explained, a statement of increased nasal discharge and congestion does not indicate that a physical obstruction or hypertrophy was present. These findings are visualized on physical examination, and were not visualized on the Veteran's until May 2023. The Board finds that there is no credible evidence supporting physical obstruction or hypertrophy prior to May 3, 2023.

The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements that his disability is worse than currently rated. While he is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes through the senses, he is not competent to identify a specific level of disability of this disorder according to the appropriate diagnostic codes.

To that end, such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran's allergic rhinitis has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined him during the current appeal and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the examination reports and other clinical evidence) directly address the criteria under which this disability is evaluated.

Moreover, as the examiner has the requisite medical expertise to render a medical opinion regarding the degree of impairment caused by the disability and had sufficient facts and data on which to base the conclusion, the Board affords the medical opinion great probative value. The Board finds the December 2014, February 2016, and May 2023 VA examinations, combined with the March 2026 VA examiner's opinion, to be significantly more probative than the Veteran's lay assertions. These records are more probative than the Veteran's subjective complaints of increased symptomatology.

As such, the medical evidence does not show nasal polyps, obstruction greater than 50 percent of nasal passages on both sides, or complete obstruction of one side, at any time prior to May 3, 2023. Accordingly, the criteria for a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis prior to May 3, 2023, are not met, and the medical evidence does not support the claim for an increased rating. The benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable, and the appeal is denied.

Thomas H. O'Shay

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Asare, Ama K.

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer