Case A26023988

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from July 1989 to April 2017, appeals the denial of service connection for left and right shoulder conditions, hypertension, left and right hip degenerative joint disease with limitation of flexion and extension, left lower extremity scar, right lower extremity scar, and right upper extremity scar. The veteran contended that the shoulder conditions were due to service or secondary to spinal arthritis, and attributed them to in-service events like uneven ground, deployments, and working on cement. For hypertension, the veteran sought a higher rating, claiming it had worsened. For the hip conditions, the veteran sought compensable ratings due to pain and limitations, particularly during flare-ups. For the scars, the veteran sought increased ratings. The Board denied all claims. For the shoulder conditions, the Board found no current diagnosis in the service treatment records or other evidence, despite the veteran's reported pain. For hypertension, the Board reviewed VA examinations and treatment records, finding that the veteran's blood pressure readings, even with medication, did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7101. For the hip conditions, the Board reviewed multiple VA examinations, noting that the veteran's reported range of motion, even during flare-ups, did not meet the minimum requirements for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Codes 5252 and 5251. For the scars, the Board reviewed examinations and found that the scars did not meet the area or pain criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7802.

Rationale

No current diagnosis in service treatment records.; Veteran's reported pain without diagnosis is insufficient for service connection.; Persuasive weight of evidence is against a finding of current disability.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26023988
Decision Date: 03/17/26	Archive Date: 03/17/26

DOCKET NO. 250414-537599
DATE: March 17, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder condition is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder condition is denied. 

Entitlement to a compensable rating for hypertension is denied. 

Entitlement to a compensable rating for left hip degenerative joint disease with limitation of flexion (LHF) prior to October 12, 2025, is denied. 

Entitlement to a compensable rating for right hip degenerative joint disease with limitation of flexion (RHF) prior to October 12, 2025, is denied. 

Entitlement to a compensable rating for left hip degenerative joint disease with limitation of extension (LHE) is denied. 

Entitlement to a compensable rating for left lower extremity associated with left Achilles tendonitis (LLE) scar is denied. 

Entitlement to a compensable rating for right lower extremity associated with right Achilles tendonitis status post cheilectomy (RLE) scar is denied.

Entitlement to a compensable rating for right upper extremity associated with right carpal bossing (RUE) scar is denied. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of left shoulder condition.

2. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of right shoulder condition. 

3. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has diastolic blood pressure readings of predominantly 100 or more, or a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more which requires continuous medication for control.

4. The persuasive weight of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's LHF was limited to 45 degrees prior to October 12, 2025.

5. The persuasive weight of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's RHF was limited to 45 degrees prior to October 12, 2025.

6. The persuasive weight of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's LHE was limited to 5 degrees which is required for a compensable rating. 

7. The persuasive weight of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's LLE scar measured an area of 929 square centimeters or greater or was painful. 

8. The persuasive weight of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's RLE scar measured an area of 929 square centimeters or greater or was painful. 

9. The persuasive weight of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's RUE scar measured an area of 929 square centimeters or greater or was painful. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left shoulder condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right shoulder condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101.

4. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for LHF prior to October 12, 2025, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5252.

5. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for RHF prior to October 12, 2025, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5252.

6. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for LHE have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5251.

7. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for
12, 2025, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5252.

6. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for LHE have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5251.

7. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for LLE scar have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802.

8. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for RLE scar have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802.

9. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for RUE scar have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1989 to April 2017. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2025 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The rating decision on appeal constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

The Veteran timely appealed the rating decision by filing an April 2025 Decision Review Request. The Veteran elected Direct Review of his claim by a Veterans Law Judge. Therefore, only the evidence associated with the record at the time of the February 2025 rating decision will be considered on appeal.

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 in this decision.

1. Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder condition.

2. Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder condition.

The Board addresses the service connection claims together as they stem from the same factual background and are addressed on the same legal basis.

The Veteran contends that he developed left shoulder condition and right shoulder condition due to his military service. On the October 2024 VA Form 21-526EZ, the Veteran wrote that he had bursitis in his left shoulder that was caused by an in-service event, injury, or exposure. He also wrote that the condition was secondary to his spinal arthritis. He further wrote "being on the uneven ground multiple deployments and field problems and working on cement." For the right shoulder, the Veteran also wrote that he had bursitis that was caused by event, injury, or exposure. He also attributed the condition to multiple deployments. 

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). Under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings by the agency of jurisdiction in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).

The February 2025 rating decision favorably found that the Veteran participated in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA
. 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). Under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings by the agency of jurisdiction in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).

The February 2025 rating decision favorably found that the Veteran participated in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA). However, service connection was denied for left shoulder condition and right shoulder condition because the evidence did not show a current diagnosis. 

The Board has reviewed the claims file and considered the Veteran's statements. The Board finds that service connection is not warranted for left shoulder condition or right shoulder condition because the evidence of record is insufficient to support a current diagnosis. 

Service treatment records do not show a diagnosis of left shoulder or right shoulder condition. See, e.g., June 2007 VA SO Note (no arm pain, swelling, decrease in strength, range of motion, endurance or sensation to include shoulder and elbow). However, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran reported shoulder pain after service; however, a diagnosis was not given. See June 2022 Community Care Coordination plan. The Veteran has not submitted any evidence other than his lay statements to support the possibly that pain may be evidence of a diagnosis. In general, service connection cannot be granted without evidence of a current diagnosis. The Board has noted that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) found that the term "disability" as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability," and held that "pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability."  See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018).  Although pain alone may potentially be considered to be a disability for which compensation may be paid, there is no evidence that this reported pain results in any occupational impairment.  Accordingly, entitlement to a service connection for left shoulder condition and right shoulder condition is denied. 

Increased Ratings

Disability ratings are determined by the application of VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Schedule), which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Pertinent regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Schedule, but that findings sufficient to identify the disease and the resulting disability and, above all, coordination of the rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21; see also Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002).

When after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two ratings shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. 

38 C.F.R. § 4.59 allows consideration of functional loss due to painful motion to be rated to at least the minimum compensable rating for a particular joint. The Board will consider whether separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, a practice known as "staged ratings," in all claims for increased ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-27 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 519 (2007).

3. Entitlement to a compensable rating for hypertension. 

The Veteran is service connected for hypertension with a noncompensable rating effective May 1, 2017, under Diagnostic Code 7101. 

38 C.F.R § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101 provides a compensable rating of 10 percent for diastolic pressure predominantly of 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or; minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control. A 20 percent rating is applicable when diastolic pressure is predominantly 110 or more, or;
 App. 505, 519 (2007).

3. Entitlement to a compensable rating for hypertension. 

The Veteran is service connected for hypertension with a noncompensable rating effective May 1, 2017, under Diagnostic Code 7101. 

38 C.F.R § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101 provides a compensable rating of 10 percent for diastolic pressure predominantly of 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or; minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control. A 20 percent rating is applicable when diastolic pressure is predominantly 110 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. A 40 percent rating is applicable when diastolic pressure predominantly is 120 or more. A maximum of 60 percent is applicable when diastolic pressure predominantly is 130 or more.

Note (1): Hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension must be confirmed by readings taken two or more times on at least three different days. For purposes of this section, the term hypertension means that the diastolic blood pressure is predominantly 90mm. or greater, and isolated systolic hypertension means that the systolic blood pressure is predominantly 160mm. or greater with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90mm.	

Note (2): Evaluate hypertension due to aortic insufficiency or hyperthyroidism, which is usually the isolated systolic type, as part of the condition causing it rather than by a separate evaluation.	

Note (3): Evaluate hypertension separately from hypertensive heart disease and other types of heart disease.

The Board has reviewed the evidence of record and finds that an increased rating for hypertension is not warranted. The Veteran was previously evaluated during a January 2017 VA examination. During this examination, the Veteran's blood pressure was taken three times. The readings were the following: 140/80, 138/80, and 136/76. The Veteran's treatment included taking continuous medication which was lisinopril. There were no other pertinent findings. The examiner specified that the Veteran does not have a history of a diastolic BP elevation to predominately 100 or more.

The June 2017 rating decision granted service connection for hypertension with a non-compensable rating. The Veteran did not appeal this decision. Generally, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher rating. See October 2024 VA 21-526EZ; April 2025 Decision Review Request.

The Veteran was re-evaluated during the September 2022 VA examination. During the examination, the Veteran's blood pressure was taken three times. The readings were the following: 138/88, 140/88, and 140/86. The Veteran continued to use lisinopril for treatment. The examiner specified that the Veteran does not have a history of a diastolic BP elevation to predominately 100 or more.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that the severity of his hypertension has increased. During the May 2023 VA visit, the Veteran reported that he experienced "...dizziness, weakness, and fainting when my B/P drops below 100. I did take my b/p meds today and it was 117/74." However, post-service treatment records since May 1, 2017, do not show diastolic pressure predominantly of 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or; minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control. See, e.g., October 2019 VA Primary Care note (102/62); July 2021 VA Primary Care (123/74); October 2021 VA Endoscopy Nursing note (136/77); March 2022 VA Pulmonary note (136/85); August 2022 VA Primary Care note (137/87); July 2023  VA Nursing note (141/85); February 2024 VA Primary Care note (128/78).

At no point throughout the applicable appeal period did the Veteran's diastolic pressure show predominantly 100 or more or systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more while using his medication. He also does not have a history of diastolic BP elevation to predominately 100 or more. Therefore, the Veteran is not entitled to a 10 percent disability rating under any of the rating criteria under Diagnostic Code 7101. Furthermore, none of the blood pressure readings correspond with the higher rating criteria. Accordingly, entitlement to a compensable rating for hypertension is denied. 

4. Entitlement to a compensable rating for LHF prior to October 12, 2025.

5. Entitlement to a compensable rating for RHF prior to October 
 no point throughout the applicable appeal period did the Veteran's diastolic pressure show predominantly 100 or more or systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more while using his medication. He also does not have a history of diastolic BP elevation to predominately 100 or more. Therefore, the Veteran is not entitled to a 10 percent disability rating under any of the rating criteria under Diagnostic Code 7101. Furthermore, none of the blood pressure readings correspond with the higher rating criteria. Accordingly, entitlement to a compensable rating for hypertension is denied. 

4. Entitlement to a compensable rating for LHF prior to October 12, 2025.

5. Entitlement to a compensable rating for RHF prior to October 12, 2025. 

6. Entitlement to a compensable rating for LHE. 

The Veteran is service connected for LHF and RHF with a non-compensable rating prior to October 12, 2025, under Diagnostic Code 5252. The rating decision on appeal is from February 2025. After this rating decision was issued, the Veteran was awarded a 10 percent rating effective October 12, 2025. See December 2025 rating decision. Thus, the Board has limited review of the claim to the period prior to October 12, 2025. The Veteran is also service connected for LHE with a noncompensable rating under Diagnostic Code 5251. Generally, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to a compensable rating for his disabilities. See April 2025 Decision Review Request. 

Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5252, a minimum rating of 10 percent is warranted for limitation of flexion when flexion is limited to 45 degrees. A 20 percent rating is warranted when flexion is limited to 30 degrees. A 30 percent rating is warranted when flexion is limited to 20 degrees. A maximum 40 percent rating is warranted when flexion is limited to 10 degrees.

Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5251, a maximum rating of 10 percent is warranted for limitation of extension is warranted when extension is limited to 5 degrees.

Post-service treatment records do not indicate the Veteran's LHF or RHF manifested limitation of flexion to 45 degrees or LHE manifested limitation of extension to 5 degrees. See, e.g., April 2023 VA RN Progress note (Veteran denied hip pain or swelling). 

The Veteran was evaluated during the September 2022 VA examination. During the examination, the Veteran reported that his pain progressed over time. Pain increased with activity, prolonged sitting, standing, and with sleeping. Range of motion testing revealed flexion to 110 degrees bilaterally and extension to 30 degrees bilaterally. There was no additional loss of function or range of motion after three repetitions. The examiner noted pain significantly limited functional ability with repeated use over time bilaterally. Estimated range of motion in degrees for this joint immediately after repeated use over time was flexion to 110 degrees bilaterally and extension to 30 degrees bilaterally. The Veteran denied flare-ups. 

The Veteran was evaluated again during an August 2023 VA examination. During the examination, the Veteran reported pain with prolonged sitting. He used over the counter pain reliever to treat the symptoms. The Veteran reported flare-ups for the right hip were alleviated by rest and stretching. Flare-ups of the left hip occurred daily, were mild, and lasted approximately 30 minutes depending on the activity. Range of motion testing revealed flexion to 120 degrees bilaterally and extension to 25 degrees bilaterally. Measurements were the same on passive range of motion testing. There was no additional loss of function or range of motion after three repetitions. The examiner noted pain significantly limited functional ability with repeated use over time bilaterally. Estimated range of motion in degrees for this joint immediately after repeated use over time was flexion to 115 degrees bilaterally and extension to 20 degrees bilaterally. The examiner also indicated that the estimated range of motion during a flare-up would be 110 degrees for flexion bilaterally and 15 degrees for extension bilaterally. 

The last evaluation took place in October 2024. The Veteran reported flare-ups during the examination. He indicated flare-ups of the left hip and right hip occurred one to two times a week. The flare-ups were moderate and lasted less than one hour. The flare-ups were precipitated by prolonged sitting and standing. Range of motion testing revealed flexion to 110 degrees and extension to 30 degrees bilaterally for the right hip. For the left hip, range of motion testing revealed flexion to 105 degrees and extension to 25 degrees. Measurements were
. The examiner also indicated that the estimated range of motion during a flare-up would be 110 degrees for flexion bilaterally and 15 degrees for extension bilaterally. 

The last evaluation took place in October 2024. The Veteran reported flare-ups during the examination. He indicated flare-ups of the left hip and right hip occurred one to two times a week. The flare-ups were moderate and lasted less than one hour. The flare-ups were precipitated by prolonged sitting and standing. Range of motion testing revealed flexion to 110 degrees and extension to 30 degrees bilaterally for the right hip. For the left hip, range of motion testing revealed flexion to 105 degrees and extension to 25 degrees. Measurements were the same on passive range of motion testing. After three repetitions, there was an additional loss of function. Flexion was 100 degrees bilaterally and extension was 20 degrees bilaterally. The examiner also indicated that the estimated range of motion during a flare-up would be 80 degrees for flexion of the right hip and 90 degrees for flexion of the left hip. Extension was estimated to be 5 degrees for the right hip and 10 degrees for the left hip. 

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that the severity of his disabilities was worse than assessed. The Veteran is competent to report symptoms he observed via his senses; but he does not possess the requisite expertise to assess the severity of his disabilities. See Kahana v. Shinkseki, 24?Vet. App.?428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, the objective medical evidence of record answered this question. The evidence showed the Veteran LHF and RHF were not limited to at least 45 degrees throughout the course of the appeal. Likewise, the evidence did not show that the Veteran's LHE was limited to at least 5 degrees. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's complaints of pain and flare-ups. However, the examiners indicated that the estimated range of motion during flare-ups was still less than the minimum required for a compensable rating. 

Accordingly, the criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for LHF, RHF, and LHE have not been established, either through medical or lay evidence. In arriving at the decision to deny the claim, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the persuasive weight of the evidence is against the claims, the doctrine does not apply. 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); 38?C.F.R. §?3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1?Vet. App.?49, 53-56 (1990).

7. Entitlement to a compensable rating for LLE scar.

8. Entitlement to a compensable rating for RLE scar.

9. Entitlement to a compensable rating for RUE scar. 

The Veteran is service connected for LLE, RLE, and RUE with a noncompensable rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher rating for his disabilities. 

Diagnostic Code 7805 is assigned for scars, other; and other effects of scars evaluated under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7804. The code instructs the rater to evaluate any disabling effect(s) not considered in a rating provided under diagnostic codes 7800-04 under an appropriate diagnostic code. 

Diagnostic Code 7802 provides a 10 percent rating for burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage that affects an area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater. Note (1): For the purposes of Diagnostic Codes 7801 and 7802, the six (6) zones of the body are defined as each extremity, anterior trunk, and posterior trunk. The midaxillary line divides the anterior trunk from the posterior trunk. Note (2): A separate evaluation may be assigned for each affected zone of the body under this diagnostic code if there are multiple scars, or a single scar, affecting multiple zones of the body. Combine separate evaluations under § 4.25. Alternatively, if a higher evaluation would result from adding the areas affected from multiple zones of the body, a single evaluation may also be assigned under this diagnostic code.

On the January 2017 VA examination for foot, the examiner indicated the Veteran had three nonpainful scars on his right foot. One measured 8 x 0.3cm, another measured 4
 defined as each extremity, anterior trunk, and posterior trunk. The midaxillary line divides the anterior trunk from the posterior trunk. Note (2): A separate evaluation may be assigned for each affected zone of the body under this diagnostic code if there are multiple scars, or a single scar, affecting multiple zones of the body. Combine separate evaluations under § 4.25. Alternatively, if a higher evaluation would result from adding the areas affected from multiple zones of the body, a single evaluation may also be assigned under this diagnostic code.

On the January 2017 VA examination for foot, the examiner indicated the Veteran had three nonpainful scars on his right foot. One measured 8 x 0.3cm, another measured 4 x 0.3 cm, and one measured 1 x 0.3 cm. On the January 2017 VA examination for the wrist, the examiner indicated the Veteran had one nonpainful scar on the right wrist that measured 4 x 0.2 cm. The June 2017 rating decision grouped all of these scars together under one diagnostic code which was 7805 and assigned a noncompensable rating effective May 1, 2017. The Veteran filed for an increased rating for this disability. See September 2022 VA 21-526EZ.

The Veteran was evaluated again in August 2023 during a VA examination for scars specifically. The Veteran described the scars as post-surgical scars that were healed. He responded "nothing" to the question about his current treatment for the scars and whether the scars impacted his ability to perform occupationally. The examiner noted that none of the scars were painful or unstable. For RUE, the examiner indicated the scar measured 3 x 0.1cm. For RLE, the examiner indicated one scar measured 4 x 0.1cm and another 7 x 0.1cm. For LLE, the examiner indicated the scar measured 5 x 0.1 cm. Based on these findings, the November 2023 rating decision separated and rated the areas of scars. The diagnostic codes were updated to 7802 and the rating remained noncompensable. 

The Veteran filed a new claim for increased rating on the October 2024 VA 21-526EZ. No specific contentions were written on the form. The Veteran completed a VA examination in October 2024. The Veteran reported that his incisions healed fine. For RUE, the examiner indicated the scar measured 0.1 x 4.2cm. For RLE, the examiner indicated one scar measured 3.5 x 0.3cm, another 3.3 x 0.5cm, another 2 x 0.1cm, and another 0.5 x 0.3cm, and one 6 x 0.2 cm. For LLE, the examiner indicated this one scar measured 4.5 x 0.2cm and another 2 x 0.1cm. 

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that the severity of his disabilities was worse than assessed. The Veteran is competent to report symptoms he observed via his senses; but he does not possess the requisite expertise to assess the severity of his disabilities. See Kahana v. Shinkseki, 24?Vet. App.?428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, the objective medical evidence of record answered this question. The evidence showed the Veteran's scars did not measure an area of 929 square centimeters or greater and were not painful. 

Accordingly, the criteria for entitlement to a compensable rating for LLE, RLE, and RUE scars have not been established, either through medical or lay evidence. In arriving at the decision to deny the claim, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the persuasive weight of the evidence is against the claims, the doctrine does not apply. 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); 38?C.F.R. §?3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1?Vet. App.?49, 53-56 (1990).

 

 

MICHAEL MARTIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. Harris

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.