HALLUX VALGUS

T. RAYMOND · 2025 · Case ID: A25101754

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Army from February 1991 to June 1993, appeals decisions regarding his left and right foot disabilities, right shoulder disability, and increased ratings for his right knee. The Board denied service connection for left and right foot disabilities, finding no in-service incurrence or aggravation, and that the Veteran's later claims of onset during service were less credible than his earlier statements and lack of in-service treatment. The Board also found the Veteran's statements regarding nexus for his foot conditions lacked probative value as he is not competent to render a medical nexus opinion. Service connection for a right shoulder disability was granted, finding it was due to or aggravated by his service-connected lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis, resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor. For the right knee, the Board denied increased ratings for limitation of flexion and loss of extension, as the evidence did not meet the criteria for higher ratings. However, the Board granted an increased rating to 30 percent for right knee instability, as the Veteran's medical records showed persistent instability with prescribed bracing and an assistive device, meeting the criteria for the higher rating. The appeal for Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU) was dismissed as moot because the Veteran had already been granted TDIU in a prior Board decision.

Rationale

No in-service treatment or diagnosis for left foot disability.; Veteran's later claims of onset during service were less credible than prior statements.; Multiple VA examiners opined conditions were less likely than not related to service.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

TDIU

Docket No.

241004-480768

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25101754
Decision Date: 11/24/25 Archive Date: 11/24/25

DOCKET NO. 241004-480768
DATE: November 24, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is granted.

Entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee limitation of flexion related to chronic patellofemoral syndrome with degenerative joint disease is denied.

Entitlement to an increased, compensable disability rating for right knee loss of extension is denied.

Entitlement to an increased, 30 percent disability rating for right knee instability is granted effective April 25, 2024.

Entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is dismissed as moot.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's left foot disability is not secondary to any of his service-connected disabilities and is not otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

2. The Veteran's right foot disability is not secondary to any of his service-connected disabilities and is not otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

3. Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Veteran's right shoulder disability is due to or aggravated by his service-connected chronic lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis.

4. The Veteran's right knee limitation of flexion related to chronic patellofemoral syndrome with degenerative joint disease is manifested by painful motion.

5. The Veteran's right knee loss of extension is manifested by extension limited to 5 degrees.

6. The Veteran's right knee instability is manifested by persistent instability, and a medical provider has prescribed both an assistive device and bracing for ambulation.

7. A January 2020 rating decision granted service connection for total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU), and there is no remaining case or controversy pertaining to the Veteran's claim for service connection for total disability based on individual unemployability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

The criteria for an increased disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee limitation of flexion related to chronic patellofemoral syndrome with degenerative joint disease have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260.

The criteria for an increased, compensable disability rating for right knee loss of extension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261.

The criteria for a 30 percent disability rating for right knee instability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5257.

The criteria for dismissal of total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1991 to June 1993.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2024 rating decision for the claim for entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability, an August 2024 rating decision for the claim for entitlement to service connection for left and right foot disabilities, and a July 2024 rating decision for the claim for entitlement to increased ratings for the right knee flexion, extension, and instability issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) under the modernized review system, or Appeals Modernization Act (AMA).

In the October 202
S FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1991 to June 1993.

In the October 2024 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 July 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal with regards to right knee flexion, extension, and instability, the September 2024 AOJ decision on appeal with regards to the right shoulder disability, and the September 2023 AOJ decision on appeal with regards to left and right foot disabilities, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for 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).

To establish service connection on a secondary basis, the evidence must show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310, Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When a Veteran seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the Veteran prevails. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Increased Rating

In general, disability evaluations are determined by evaluating the extent to which a Veteran's service-connected disabilities adversely affect his or her ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing his or her symptomatology with the criteria set for the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The percentage ratings represent, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities and the criteria for specific ratings. If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned to the disability picture that more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The Veteran's entire history is reviewed when making disability evaluations. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589(1991).

In increased rating claims, where a claimant seeks a higher rating for a previously service-connected disability, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58(1994).

1. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for left and right foot disabilities which he asserts either began while on active duty and has continuously persisted since or are secondary to his service-connected disabilities. See June 2023 VA Form 20-0995, Supplemental Claim Application and November 2017 Appellate Brief.

In the August 2024 rating decision, the AOJ made the favorable findings that the Veteran had a diagnosis of bilateral hallux valgus and that the primary disabilities are service connected. The Board is bound by these favorable findings.

Therefore, the remaining questions before the Board are if there was in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury and a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury or if the current left and right foot disabilities were either caused by or aggravated by a service-connected disability.

Service treatment records show no complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of a left or right foot disability. In November 1992 at his medical evaluation board, the Veteran noted he did not have foot trouble, and his feet were evaluated as normal. See Service Treatment Records.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2012. The Veteran was diagnosed with bilateral hallux valgus and degenerative joint disease. The examiner opined that the Veteran's feet conditions were less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness because hallux valgus has no known etiologic factor and mild degenerative joint disease is caused by the aging process alone. See November 2012 Disability Benefits Questionnaire.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2014. The Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis and hallux valgus bilaterally. The Veteran did not cite any problems with his feet. The examiner opined that the Veteran's feet conditions were less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service-connected conditions because there was no scientific evidence to support the development of hallux valgus associated with knee conditions. The examiner stated that hallux valgus is most often developed due to ill-fitting shoes or is a physiological development issue. See December 2014 Disability Benefits Questionnaire.

The Veteran was afforded an addendum opinion in June 2017. The examiner opined that the Veteran's feet conditions were less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service-connected conditions because hallux valgus is not associated with conditions related to the knees, ankles, or back. The examiner noted that hallux valgus has numerous etiologies associated with trauma, metabolic disorders, and biomechanical conditions such as hypermobility of the foot. However, the Veteran does not have any service-connected conditions associated with the possible etiological factors that could have either caused or aggravated his hallux valgus. See June 2017 Disability Benefits Questionnaire.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2019. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hallux valgus deformity of the feet was not incurred on active duty and was not due to or permanently aggravated by the Veteran's other service connected conditions because medical literature did not support a contention that lumbosacral, knee
or back. The examiner noted that hallux valgus has numerous etiologies associated with trauma, metabolic disorders, and biomechanical conditions such as hypermobility of the foot. However, the Veteran does not have any service-connected conditions associated with the possible etiological factors that could have either caused or aggravated his hallux valgus. See June 2017 Disability Benefits Questionnaire.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in January 2020. The examiner found that the Veteran had bilateral hallux valgus. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral hallux valgus was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service-connected conditions and was not aggravated beyond its normal progression by his service-connected disabilities. The examiner stated that hallux valgus is believed to develop in predisposed families and that rheumatoid arthritis is a known predisposing factor. The examiner noted that osteoarthritis, such as the Veteran's service-connected degenerative joint disease of the ankles and knees, is not implicated in the pathoetiology of hallux valgus formation. See January 2020 Disability Benefits Questionnaire.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in September 2023. The Veteran stated that he believed that the onset of his bilateral hallux valgus was between February 1991 and July 1993. He stated that it was caused by walking during military service. The examiner noted that the Veteran had a diagnosis of bilateral hallux valgus. The examiner opined that Veteran's bilateral hallux valgus was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service-connected conditions because the literature is silent regarding a correlation or causation of knee instability and hallux valgus. The examiner noted that the exact cause of hallux valgus is unknown, but it may be associated with certain types of arthritis. See September 2023 Disability Benefits Questionnaire 1 and 2.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran states that his left and right feet disabilities began during active service. However, service treatment records show that the Veteran noted he did not have foot troubles. Additionally, the Veteran did not state that his left and right feet disabilities began during active service until his September 2023 VA examination. Therefore, the Board finds the later reports that the Veteran's bilateral hallux valgus began during service to be less credible than the prior statements.

The only evidence suggesting a nexus between the Veteran's left and right foot disabilities and service is the statement from the Veteran himself. The Veteran is competent to testify as to a condition within his knowledge and personal observation. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308-310 (2007). However, he is not competent to diagnose such disability or render a nexus, as it requires specialized medical knowledge and specific testing. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (stating that competent medical evidence means evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions). Therefore, the Veteran's statements regarding the nexus between his left and right foot disabilities and his service are lacking in probative value.

Accordingly, the criteria for service connection for left and right foot disabilities have not been met, and these appeals are denied.

3. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is granted.

The Veteran seeks service connection for a right shoulder disability.

In the September 2024 rating decision, the AOJ made the favorable findings that the Veteran has a current right shoulder disability and that the primary disabilities are service connected. The Board is bound by these favorable findings.

Therefore, the remaining question before the Board is whether the current right shoulder disability was either caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in February 2023. The Veteran stated his right shoulder pain began in 2019 from constantly using a cane for his service-connected right knee. The examiner found that the Veteran did not have a current right shoulder disability diagnosis. See February 2023 Disability Benefits Questionnaire.

Therefore, the remaining question before the Board is whether the current right shoulder disability was either caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in August 2023. The Veteran stated that his right shoulder pain began over 10 years prior. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a right shoulder strain. Based on a review of the medical records, the examiner opined that the Veteran's right shoulder disability was at least as likely as not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service-connected lumbosacral strain. The examiner explained that spinal arthritis can cause pain, swelling, and stiffness in other areas of the body. See August 2023 Disability Benefits Questionnaire 1 and 2.

There are no opinions to the contrary. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the competent and credible evidence is at least in approximate balance that the Veteran's right shoulder disability was caused or aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. Resolving any doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for his right shoulder disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

4. Entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee limitation of flexion related to chronic patellofemoral syndrome with degenerative joint disease is denied.

5. Entitlement to an increased, compensable disability rating for right knee loss of extension is denied.

6. Entitlement to an increased, 30 percent, disability rating for right knee instability is granted effective April 25, 2024.

The Veteran seeks a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right knee limitation of flexion related to chronic patellofemoral syndrome with degenerative joint disease, a compensable disability rating for right knee loss of extension, and a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for right knee instability.

Of note, the July 2024 rating decision did not explicitly address entitlement to increased ratings for the right knee loss of extension and right knee instability. However, the AOJ found there was recurrent instability after surgical repair that required a prescription by a medical provider for an assistive device and that a 20 percent rating for extension was not warranted based on the range-of-motion findings. Therefore, the Board finds that the AOJ did address right knee loss of extension and right knee instability in the July 2024 rating decision, and thus the October 2024 notice of disagreement was timely.

During the period on appeal, the Veteran's right knee limitation of flexion has been rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260. His right knee loss of extension has been rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5261; and his right knee instability has been rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5257.

Under Diagnostic Code 5257, which compensates for recurrent subluxation or instability, a 10 percent rating is warranted for a sprain, incomplete ligament tear, or complete ligament tear (repaired, unrepaired, or failed repair) causing persistent instability, without a prescription from a medical provider for an assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) or bracing for ambulation. A 20 percent rating is warranted for a sprain, incomplete ligament tear, or repaired complete ligament tear causing persistent instability, and a medical provider prescribes a brace and/or assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) for ambulation or an unrepaired or failed repair of complete ligament tear causing persistent instability, and a medical provider prescribes either an assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) or bracing for ambulation. A 30 percent rating is warranted for an unrepaired or failed repair of complete ligament tear causing persistent instability, and a medical provider prescribes both an assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) and bracing for ambulation.

Under Diagnostic Code 5260, which compensates for limitation of flexion of the knee, a 10 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 45 degrees; a 20 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 30 degrees; and a 30 percent rating, the highest schedular rating, is warranted for flexion limited to 15 degrees. 38 C.F.R
cane(s), crutch(es), walker) or bracing for ambulation. A 30 percent rating is warranted for an unrepaired or failed repair of complete ligament tear causing persistent instability, and a medical provider prescribes both an assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) and bracing for ambulation.

Under Diagnostic Code 5261, extension limited to 5 degrees warrants a 0 percent rating, extension limited to 10 degrees warrants a 10 percent rating, extension limited to 15 degrees warrants a 20 percent rating, extension limited to 20 degrees warrants a 30 percent rating, extension limited to 30 degrees warrants a 40 percent rating, and extension limited to 45 degrees warrants a maximum 50 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a.

Normal knee joint motion is from 0 degrees of extension to 140 degrees of flexion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate II. Separate ratings may be assigned for limitation of flexion and limitation of extension of the same knee. Where a Veteran has both compensable limitation of flexion and compensable limitation of extension of the same leg, the limitations must be rated separately to adequately compensate for functional loss associated with injury to the leg. VAOPGCPREC 9-04.

When evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities based on limitation of motion, 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 requires consideration of functional loss caused by pain or other factors listed in that section that could occur during flare-ups or after repeated use and, therefore, not be reflected on range-of-motion testing. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 requires consideration also be given to less movement than normal, more movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 44 (2011). Nonetheless, even when the background factors listed in § 4.40 or 4.45 are relevant when evaluating a disability, the rating is assigned based on the extent to which motion is limited, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a; a separate or higher rating under § 4.40 or 4.45 itself is not appropriate. See Thompson v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[I]t is clear that the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran's disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria.").

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2022. The Veteran stated that his right knee gives out. He noted that he took prescription pain medication. For the right knee, active and passive ranges of motion were found to have a flexion endpoint of 125 degrees and an extension endpoint of 0 degrees. The examiner found there was pain on flexion. The examiner found no additional loss of function or range of motion after three repetitions. He estimated ranges of motion after repeated use over time to have a flexion endpoint of 120 degrees and an extension endpoint of 5 degrees. The examiner stated there was no evidence to suggest pain, fatigability, weakness, lack of endurance, or incoordination which significantly limited functional ability with flare-ups, and the Veteran denied having flare-ups. There was no ankylosis present. The Veteran had recurrent subluxation or persistent instability. There had not been a ligament tear nor was there recurrent patellar instability. The Veteran had a meniscal tear and had a meniscectomy in 2014. The examiner noted that the Veteran required a prescription cane and brace for ambulation. See December 2022 Disability Benefits Questionnaire.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in May 2024. The Veteran stated that his knee buckles resulting in him falling. He wore a brace and used a cane for walking, and he took prescription pain medication. For the right knee, active and passive ranges of motion were found to have a flexion endpoint of 110 degrees and an extension endpoint of 0 degrees. The examiner found there was pain on flexion. The examiner found no additional loss of function or range of motion after three repetitions or after repetitive use over time. The examiner stated there was no evidence to suggest pain, fatigability, weakness, lack of endurance, or incoordination which significantly limited functional ability with flare-ups. There was no ankylosis present. The Veteran had recurrent subluxation or persistent instability. There had not been a ligament tear. The examiner noted that the Veteran required a prescription cane and brace for ambulation. The examiner stated that the Veteran had a right knee meniscectomy in 2014. See May 2024 Disability Benefits Questionnaire.

Under Diagnostic Code 5257, the Veteran is in receipt of a 20 percent for right knee instability. For a higher, 30 percent rating, the evidence would need to show unrepaired or failed repair of a complete ligament tear causing persistent instability, and a medical provider prescribes both an assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) and bracing for ambulation. Here, both the December 2022 and the May 2024 VA examinations show that the Veteran has been prescribed both a brace and a cane for ambulation. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to a higher, 30 percent, disability rating which is the highest rating available under this diagnostic code.

Under DC 5260, the Veteran is in receipt of a 10 percent disability rating for the right knee during the period on appeal for painful motion. For a higher, 20 percent rating, the evidence would need to show flexion limited to 30 degrees. For the right knee, flexion was limited at most to 110 degrees.

Under DC 5261, the Veteran is in receipt of a noncompensable rating. For a higher, 10 percent rating, the evidence would need to show extension limited to 10 degrees. For the right knee, extension was limited at most to 5 degrees. Additionally, there was no pain noted on extension.

In reaching this determination, the Board acknowledges that VA is required "to discount beneficial medication effects when relevant rating criteria do not specifically contemplate medication use," Ingram v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 130 (2025). Here, the beneficial effects of medication are not known and thus the Board has considered it in the adjudication of this matter, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor.

Generally, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Here, the VA Form 526EZ, Fully Developed Claim, for an increased rating for the right knee was received on April 25, 2024.

Therefore, the evidence of record shows the Veteran's right knee had pain upon motion. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran is not entitled to an increased rating of greater than 10 percent for his right knee limitation of flexion under DC 5260, nor is he entitled to a compensable rating under diagnostic code 5261, and these appeals must be denied. However, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to an increased, 30 percent, disability rating for right knee instability under diagnostic code 5257 effective April 25, 2024, the date of receipt of the claim.

7. Entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is dismissed as moot.

In the October 2024 VA Form 10182, Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran stated he was appealing the issue of entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability.

However, the Veteran has already been granted entitlement to TDIU in a January 2020 Board decision. See January 2020 BVA Decision.

As the grant of service connection represents a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal, the Board finds there is no case or controversy pertaining to the Veteran's claim of service connection for
diagnostic code 5257 effective April 25, 2024, the date of receipt of the claim.

7. Entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is dismissed as moot.

In the October 2024 VA Form 10182, Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran stated he was appealing the issue of entitlement to total disability based on individual unemployability.

However, the Veteran has already been granted entitlement to TDIU in a January 2020 Board decision. See January 2020 BVA Decision.

As the grant of service connection represents a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal, the Board finds there is no case or controversy pertaining to the Veteran's claim of service connection for TDIU. Accordingly, the appeal as to the issue presently before the Board is dismissed as moot. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

T. Raymond

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Ho, Ashley M.

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