Case A26037024

AMANDA G. ALDERMAN · 2026 · Case ID: A26037024

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Air Force from October 1971 to June 1974, passed away in July 2020, and this appeal is brought by his surviving spouse. The veteran's claims concern entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection of coronary artery disease (CAD) status post coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and secondary scars, as well as an increased rating for CAD s/p CABG. The veteran also appealed the denial of Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU) and an earlier effective date for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA). The Board denied the claims for earlier effective dates for CAD and secondary scars, finding that the evidence did not reasonably raise a claim for a heart disability prior to November 21, 2014. The Veteran's April 2014 claim for hypertension did not mention a heart disability, and subsequent records did not establish a secondary service connection claim between hypertension and CAD prior to the November 2014 claim. The Board also denied an increased rating for CAD s/p CABG from January 1, 2015, to March 13, 2019, concluding that the evidence did not support symptoms warranting a rating higher than 60 percent during that period, as the veteran's cardiac function was generally normal with only mild impairments. The claim for scars secondary to CAD was also denied, as the evidence did not support findings for a compensable rating under the applicable diagnostic code. The Board dismissed the appeal for TDIU and the earlier effective date for DEA, as these benefits were awarded by the agency of original jurisdiction in a December 2020 rating decision, rendering those issues moot and outside the Board's jurisdiction. The veteran's request for a hearing was withdrawn.

Rationale

Evidence did not reasonably raise claim for heart disability prior to Nov 21, 2014.; Cardiac function during Jan 1, 2015 - Mar 13, 2019 did not meet 100% criteria.; Benefit of the doubt rule did not apply as evidence weighed against claim.

Service Branch

AIR FORCE

Special Benefit

TDIU; EARLIER EFFECTIVE DATE

Docket No.

201215-370300

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037024
Decision Date: 04/21/26 Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 201215-370300
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 21, 2014, for the award of service connection with a 100 percent disability rating for coronary artery disease status post coronary artery bypass grafting (CAD s/p CABG) is denied.

Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 21, 2014, for the award of service connection for scars as secondary to CAD s/p CABG is denied.

Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for service-connected CAD s/p CABG from January 1, 2015, to March 13, 2019, is denied.

Entitlement to an earlier effective date than March 13, 2019, for the award of 100 percent disability rating for CAD s/p CABG is denied.

Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for service-connected scars as secondary to CAD s/p CABG is denied.

Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual unemployability based on service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is dismissed.

Entitlement to an earlier effective date than March 13, 2019, for the award of basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) is dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran intended to file or filed a claim for service connection for a heart disability, to include as secondary to hypertension prior to November 21, 2014, or with the April 2014 service connection for hypertension claim.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran intended to file or filed a claim for service connection for scars as secondary to CAD s/p CABG, to include as secondary to hypertension prior to November 21, 2014, or with the April 2014 service connection for hypertension claim.

3. From January 1, 2015, to March 13, 2019, the Veteran's CAD s/p CABG, at worst, manifested with left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 30 to 50 percent.

4. Prior to March 13, 2019, the Veteran's CAD s/p CABG did not manifest with chronic congestive heart failure, or; workload of 3 METs or less results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of less than 30 percent.

5. The Veteran's service-connected scars secondary to CAD s/p CABG did not cover an area of 39 square centimeters, an area of 929 square centimeters, and were not painful or unstable.

6. In a December 2020 rating decision, the Veteran was awarded a TDIU effective November 21, 2014.

7. In a December 2020 rating decision, an earlier effective date of November 21, 2014, was awarded for the grant of basic eligibility to DEA.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for an earlier effective date than November 21, 2014 for the award of service connection with a 100 percent disability rating for CAD s/p CABG are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

2. The criteria for an earlier effective date than November 21, 2014, for the award of service connection for scars as secondary to CAD s/p CABG are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

3. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for service-connected CAD s/p CABG from January 1, 2015, to March 13, 2019, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.100, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7017 (2020).

4. The criteria for earlier effective date than March 13, 2019, for the award of 100 percent disability rating for CAD s/p CABG are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.100, 4.104, DC 7017.

5.
; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.100, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7017 (2020).

5. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for service-connected scars as secondary to CAD s/p CABG are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.7, 4.118, DCs 7800, 7801, 7804, 7805 (2020).

6. The appeal concerning entitlement to a TDIU is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 710; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.7, 20.101, 20.200, 20.202.

7. The appeal concerning entitlement to an earlier effective date than March 13, 2019, for the grant of eligibility to DEA is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (d); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.151, 3.340, 3.341, 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from October 1971 to June 1974. Unfortunately, he died in July 2020. The Appellant is the surviving spouse. In September 2020, the Appellant was substituted as the claimant. See Correspondence, September 29, 2020.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from October 2020 and November 2020 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Veterans Benefits Administration (the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ)).

In the October 2020 rating decision, the AOJ awarded service connection for CAD s/p CABG as secondary to service-connected hypertension with an evaluation of 100 percent effective November 21, 2014; an evaluation of 60 percent effective January 1, 2015; and an evaluation of 100 percent effective March 13, 2019. Additionally, the AOJ awarded service connection for scars secondary to CAD s/p CABG with a noncompensable evaluation effective November 21, 2014; and basic eligibility of DEA from March 13, 2019.

In the November 2020 rating decision, the AOJ denied a TDIU.

In a December 7, 2020, rating decision, the AOJ awarded a TDIU and assigned a November 21, 2014, effective date; and awarded an earlier effective date of November 21, 2014, for the grant of eligibility to DEA.

On December 15, 2020, the Appellant submitted a notice of disagreement (NOD (via VA Form 10182)), appealing the October 2020 and November 2020 rating decisions to the Board, and requesting a Hearing with a Veterans Law Judge.

In March 2024, the appellant was notified of a Board virtual tele-hearing scheduled for July 8, 2024. See BVA Hearing Scheduled Letter, March 14, 2024. In June 2024, VA received correspondence from the Appellant's representative requesting to cancel the Appellant's hearing before the Board. See BVA Hearing Withdrawal, June 4, 2024. The Appellant's hearing request is cancelled pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d).

Evidentiary Window

When an Appellant has requested a Board hearing, the Board may only consider the evidence of record before the AOJ at the time of its decision on the issues on appeal, evidence submitted by the Appellant or her representative at the Board hearing, to include testimony provided at the hearing; and evidence submitted within 90 days following the Board hearing or cancellation thereof. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300(a), 302(a). Notably, the Appellant, through counsel, withdrew her request for a hearing on June 6, 2024.

Earlier Effective Date

Generally, and except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension,
20.704(d).

Evidentiary Window

Earlier Effective Date

Generally, and except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) 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. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

Effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to require that all claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations be filed on a standard form. Prior to March 24, 2015, VA recognized formal and informal claims. For effective date purposes, "claim" was defined as a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) (2014). An informal claim was any communication or action indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under the laws administered by VA and identifying the benefit sought. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (2014).

Effective March 24, 2015, the pertinent regulation allows a claimant to submit intent to file a claim, and VA may recognize the receipt date of the intent to file a claim as the date of claim so long as VA receives the successfully completed claim form within a year. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155.

1. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 21, 2014 for the award of service connection with a 100 percent disability rating for CAD s/p CABG is denied.

2. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than November 21, 2014, for the award of service connection for scars secondary to CAD s/p CABG is denied.

The Appellant contends that an earlier effective date is warranted for the award of service connection for CAD s/p CABG and scars secondary to CAD s/p CAD grafting. Specifically, the Appellant's representative asserts that an effective date of April 11, 2014 is warranted. See BVA Hearing Withdrawal, June 4, 2024.

Analysis

In April 2014, VA received the Veteran's claim for service connection for liver problems, diabetes mellitus II, hypertension, inability to tolerate mediations, allergies, and chronic fatigue syndrome. See VA Form 21-526EZ, April 11, 2014.

In November 2014, VA received the Veteran's claim for service connection for mitral valve (residuals of rheumatic fever aggravated by military service). See VA Form 21-526b, November 21, 2014.

In a June 2015 rating decision, the AOJ awarded service connection for hypertension effective April 11, 2014, the date the claim for service connection was received.

In the October 2020 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ awarded service connection for CAD s/p CABG as secondary to service-connected disability of hypertension with a 100 percent disability rating effective November 21, 2014 (the date the claim for service connection was received); a 60 percent disability rating from January 1, 2015; and a 100 percent disability rating from March 13, 2019. Additionally, service connection for scars secondary to CAD s/p CABG was awarded effective November 21, 2014.

A thorough review of the evidence of record revealed no claim or correspondence that could be construed as either a notice of intent to file a claim or a claim for entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, prior to November 21, 2014. Moreover, an April 2014 statement provided by the Veteran made no reference to a heart disability or a potential claim for a heart disability. See VA Form 21-4138, April 11, 2014. Furthermore, neither the representative nor the claimant have identified correspondence in the claims file that is believed to have been an earlier claim filed or intent to file a claim, by the Veteran, for a heart disability.

The Appellant's representative contends that the April 11, 2014, service
evidence of record revealed no claim or correspondence that could be construed as either a notice of intent to file a claim or a claim for entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, prior to November 21, 2014. Moreover, an April 2014 statement provided by the Veteran made no reference to a heart disability or a potential claim for a heart disability. See VA Form 21-4138, April 11, 2014. Furthermore, neither the representative nor the claimant have identified correspondence in the claims file that is believed to have been an earlier claim filed or intent to file a claim, by the Veteran, for a heart disability.

The Appellant's representative contends that the April 11, 2014, service connection claim for hypertension was a "claim for all cardiac conditions which can reasonably be construed as associated with service," and therefore, the effective date for service-connected CAD s/p CABG should be April 11, 2014. See BVA Hearing Withdrawal, June 4, 2024.

The central question is whether a claim for service connection for a heart disability had been reasonably raised by the record prior to VA's receipt of the November 21, 2014, claim for service connection for mitral valve. The Board is mindful that a claim is deemed to encompass all symptoms reasonably presented in the record, regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 4-5 (2009). VA is required to develop and adjudicate related claims for secondary service connection for disabilities that are reasonably raised during the adjudication of a formally initiated claim for the proper evaluation level for the primary service-connected disability. See Morgan v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 162, 164 (2019); Bailey v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 188, 203 (1991). In this instance, the Board finds that the issue of service connection for a heart disability was not reasonably raised by the record prior to the November 2014 claim for service connection. The Veteran previously filed a claim for hypertension and a heart disability in January 1997. See VA Form 21-526b, January 30, 1997. Neither the Veteran nor the VA examinations and opinions reasonably raised a secondary service connection claim between the two conditions. See VA Form 21-526b, January 30, 1997; Private Treatment Records, January 30, 1997; VA Examination, April 4, 1997; VA Treatment Record, April 14, 1997. Subsequent VA treatment records did not reasonably raise a secondary service connection claim between the two conditions. See VA Examination, August 20, 2009. Moreover, in the April 2014 statement provided with the Veteran's application for service connection for hypertension, the Veteran made no reference to a heart disability or a disability secondary to hypertension. See VA Form 21-4138.

The Board acknowledges the representative's assertion that the Veteran's April 2014 claim for service connection for hypertension inherently included a claim for a heart disability. However, the claim for a heart disability is not borne out by the record based on the evidence discussed. The record does not support a finding that the evidence of record reasonably raised a secondary service connection between the Veteran's hypertension and CAD s/p CABG prior to November 21, 2014.

In sum, although the Veteran believes an earlier effective date prior to November 21, 2014, is warranted, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran intended to file or filed a claim for service connection for a heart disability, to include as secondary to hypertension prior to November 21, 2014, or with the April 2014 service connection for hypertension claim. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). As such, the claim is denied.

Increased Rating

Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the facts presented to VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) at 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1.

Where entitlement to compensation has been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. Francisco v
). As such, the claim is denied.

Increased Rating

Where entitlement to compensation has been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Where an appeal is based on an initial rating for a disability, however, evidence contemporaneous with the claim and the initial rating decision are most probative of the degree of disability existing when the initial rating was assigned and should be the evidence "used to decide whether an original rating on appeal was erroneous." Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). In either case, if later evidence indicates that the degree of disability increased or decreased following the assignment of the initial rating, staged ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time. Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126; Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) (noting that staged ratings are appropriate whenever the factual findings show distinct time periods in which a disability exhibits symptoms that warrant different ratings).

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 criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.21. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. By reasonable doubt is meant on which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. Id. The Board finds that the veteran is competent to report his symptoms and there is no evidence that his reports are not credible. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The evaluation of the same disability under several diagnostic codes, known as pyramiding, must be avoided; however, separate ratings may be assigned for distinct disabilities resulting from the same injury so long as the symptomatology for one condition is not duplicative of the symptomatology of the other condition. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 262 (1994).

For increased rating claims, 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(3) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) potentially allow for an increase in disability compensation of up to one year prior to the date of claim, if it is factually ascertainable based on all evidence of record that an increase in disability had occurred. See Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (referencing the "one-year look-back period").

1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for service-connected CAD s/p CABG from January 1, 2015, to March 13, 2019, is denied.

2. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than March 13, 2019, for the award of 100 percent disability rating for CAD s/p CABG, is denied.

1. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for service-connected CAD s/p CABG from January 1, 2015, to March 13, 2019, is denied.

2. Entitlement to an earlier effective date than March 13, 2019, for the award of 100 percent disability rating for CAD s/p CABG, is denied.

The Appellant contends a disability rating in excess of 60 percent is warranted for CAD s/p CABG from January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2019, which is evaluated under DC 7017 for coronary bypass surgery. See Rating Decision-Codesheet, October 22, 2020; 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7017. Alternatively, the Appellant contends that an earlier effective date prior to March 13, 2019, is warranted for the award of a 100 percent disability rating.

Applicable Law

DC 7017 provides that a 100 percent rating is assigned for three months following hospital admission from surgery. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104 (2020). Thereafter, a 10 percent rating is assigned for workload of greater than 7 METs (metabolic equivalents) but not greater than 10 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; continuous medication required. A 30 percent rating is assigned for workload of greater than 5 METs but not greater than 7 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; evidence of cardiac hypertrophy or dilatation on electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, or X-ray. A 60 percent rating is assigned for more than one episode of acute congestive heart failure in the past year, or; workload of greater than 3 METs but not greater than 5 METs results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 30 to 50 percent. A 100 percent rating is assigned to chronic congestive heart failure, or; workload of 3 METs or less results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of less than 30 percent. Id.

In June 2015, the Veteran was afforded a VA heart conditions examination. The clinician indicated that the Veteran had congestive heart failure. See VA Heart Conditions DBQ, June 19, 2015. The clinician noted that a 2014 exercise stress test revealed a MET level of 7. The clinician noted that a 2014 echocardiogram ejection fraction was 28 percent with normal wall motion and thickness. The clinician indicated that the Veteran's heart condition did not impact his ability to work. Id.

An August 24, 2014, VA follow-up for CAD and ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) examination report includes notation that the Veteran could walk a quarter mile without angina or dyspnea on exertion. A November 27, 2015, VA follow-up for cardiac condition examination report contained notation that a private echocardiogram revealed a normal ejection fraction of 55 percent. The Veteran reported feeling well and denied having orthopnea or paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea. See VA Treatment Record, November 27, 2015. The clinician noted that the Veteran's cardiac function s/p CAD was normal. Id. A November 28, 2016 VA treatment record contains notation that the Veteran denied having chest pain or pressure, palpitations, or presyncope or syncopal episodes. The clinician noted regular heart rate and rhythm; and no murmurs, gallops, rubs or clicks were heard. Id.

On March 14, 2019, the Veteran was seen in a VA emergency room with complaints of progressively worsening dyspnea and cough. The clinician noted that the Veteran had developed pneumonia in July 2018, resulting in bilateral pleural effusions. See VA Treatment Record, March 14, 2019. The Veteran reported experiencing shortness of breath, weakness, and left anterior chest pain for one week. Id. The Veteran was admitted and subsequently discharged on March 26, 2019. The clinician noted that a March 7, 2019 echocardiogram revealed hypokinesia, an ejection fraction 30-40 percent, severe tricuspid regurgitation, moderate mitral valve and aortic regurgitation. Id.

Upon review, the Board finds that a disability rating in excess of 60 percent from January 1, 2015 to
the Veteran had developed pneumonia in July 2018, resulting in bilateral pleural effusions. See VA Treatment Record, March 14, 2019. The Veteran reported experiencing shortness of breath, weakness, and left anterior chest pain for one week. Id. The Veteran was admitted and subsequently discharged on March 26, 2019. The clinician noted that a March 7, 2019 echocardiogram revealed hypokinesia, an ejection fraction 30-40 percent, severe tricuspid regurgitation, moderate mitral valve and aortic regurgitation. Id.

Upon review, the Board finds that a disability rating in excess of 60 percent from January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2019, is not warranted. The evidence of record during the period of January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2019, does not demonstrate that the Veteran's CAD manifested with chronic congestive heart failure, or; workload of 3 METs or less results in dyspnea, fatigue, angina, dizziness, or syncope, or; left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of less than 30 percent. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7017. As noted above, the Veteran was found to have normal cardiac function and denied cardiac symptoms during the period from January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2019.

In sum, the Veteran's CAD impairment is most accurately reflected by symptoms of left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction of 30 to 50 percent. Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran met the criteria for 60 percent evaluation for CAD s/p CABG, but not the 100 percent criteria. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch, supra.

As such, the claims for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 60 percent for CAD s/p CABG from January 1, 2015 to March 13, 2019; and entitlement to an earlier effective date than March 13, 2019, for the assignment of a 100 percent disability rating, are denied.

3. Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for service-connected scars as secondary to CAD s/p CABG is denied.

The Appellant contends that an initial compensable rating is warranted for the Veteran's service-connected scars as secondary to CAD s/p CABG, which is evaluated under DC 7805, for other scars (including linear scars) and other effects of scars. See Rating Decision-Codesheet, October 22, 2020; 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DC 7805.

Applicable Law

VA amended the criteria for rating skin disabilities effective from August 13, 2018. However, DC 7805 was not changed by the August 13, 2018, amendments. DC 7805 instructs that any disabling effect(s) not considered in a rating provided under DCs 7800-04 are to be evaluated under an appropriate DC. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DC 7805. In this instance, DC 7802 is the appropriate DC because the Veteran's scars were not of the head, face, or neck and was not been shown to be associated with underlying soft tissue damage. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DCs 7800, 7801, 7802, 7804. Under DC 7802, a 10 percent rating is assigned for superficial and nonlinear scars that are 144 sq. in. (929 sq. cm.) or greater. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DC 7802.

Analysis

A thorough review of evidence of VA treatment records reveal no complaints of, or treatment for, the Veteran's scar. Prior to the Veteran's death, he was not provided a VA scar examination. However, the June 19, 2015, VA heart conditions DBQ, contains notation that the Veteran had scars (surgical or otherwise) related to his heart disability, that were not painful or unstable, and were not greater than 39 square cm (6 square inches) in total area. There are no additional measurements of the scar or scars of record. Unfortunately, the evidence of record does not contain findings sufficient to warrant a higher rating under DC 7802. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against a compensable rating, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F
death, he was not provided a VA scar examination. However, the June 19, 2015, VA heart conditions DBQ, contains notation that the Veteran had scars (surgical or otherwise) related to his heart disability, that were not painful or unstable, and were not greater than 39 square cm (6 square inches) in total area. There are no additional measurements of the scar or scars of record. Unfortunately, the evidence of record does not contain findings sufficient to warrant a higher rating under DC 7802. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against a compensable rating, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7; Lynch, supra. Accordingly, the claim is denied.

4. The appeal concerning entitlement to a TDIU, is dismissed.

5. The appeal concerning entitlement to an earlier effective date than March 13, 2019, for the grant of eligibility to DEA, is dismissed.

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to identify the specific determination with which the claimant disagrees. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d).

On the December 15, 2020 "NOD-Decision Review Request to the Board," The Veteran disagreed, inter alia, with the denial of an award of TDIU; an sought an earlier effective date prior to March 13, 2015, for the grant of eligibility for DEA. In a December 7, 2020 rating decision, while the appeal concerning entitlement to a TDIU was pending, the AOJ awarded a TDIU effective November 21, 2014, the effective date assigned for the award of a 100 percent disability rating for service-connected CAD s/p CABG. See Rating Decision, December 7, 2020. Additionally, the AOJ awarded an earlier effective date November 21, 2014 for the grant of eligibility to DEA. Id. The December 2020 rating decision is an award of the full benefit sought on appeal.

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege a specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. Here, as a result of the December 2020 rating decision, there no longer remains a case or controversy with respect to this claims of entitlement to a TDIU and entitlement to an earlier effective date for grant of eligibility to DEA. Therefore, the Board lacks jurisdiction over these issues. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.7, 20.101, 20.200, 20.202. Accordingly, the claims are dismissed.

AMANDA G. ALDERMAN

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board C. Camille NeSmith

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