PERIPHERAL VESTIBULAR DISORDERS

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from November 1967 to August 1969, appeals the denial of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for dizziness. The Veteran's claim for dizziness is evaluated under Diagnostic Code 6204, peripheral vestibular disorders. The Board reviewed evidence including a January 2021 VA examination where the Veteran reported intermittent dizziness and lightheadedness, particularly when changing positions. A July 2022 VA examination noted no ear or vestibular diagnoses and that the Veteran declined symptoms of dizziness and staggering. A subsequent April 2025 VA examination indicated the Veteran experienced dizziness a couple of times per week when bending over or getting up too fast, lasting a couple of seconds, and had an abnormal Romberg test. The Board found the VA examinations adequate, noting the Veteran reported dizziness but not staggering, which was consistent with treatment records. The Board concluded that while dizziness warranted a 10 percent rating, the evidence did not support a higher rating as symptoms of occasional staggering were absent. The Board also considered and rejected other diagnostic codes related to ear conditions as they were not supported by the evidence. The Board found the evidence weighed against a higher rating, and as there was no approximate balance of evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule did not apply.

Rationale

Evidence persuasively weighs against claim for rating in excess of 10 percent.; No approximate balance of evidence, benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply.; VA examinations noted dizziness but not staggering.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039308
Decision Date: 04/28/26	Archive Date: 04/28/26

DOCKET NO. 251216-624167
DATE: April 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for dizziness is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's dizziness condition is manifested by occasional dizziness.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent for dizziness have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6204.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served in the United States Army from November 1967 to August 1969.

As an initial matter, in Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held the Board should not adjudicate an appeal until the time for the appellant to switch Board dockets has ended. This period ends either one year from the date the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) mailed notice of the decision on appeal, or 60 days from the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, whichever date is later. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(c)(2). Here, the Board may proceed with adjudication because the period for the Veteran to request to switch dockets has passed. 

In the December 6, 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2025 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. 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 claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Rating Principles

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.

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).

The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows or fails to show. The Veteran should not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not specifically discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000).

Entitlement to a rating
. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

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).

The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows or fails to show. The Veteran should not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not specifically discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000).

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for dizziness is denied.

The Veteran's dizziness condition is rated pursuant to Diagnostic Code 6204, peripheral vestibular disorders. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87. Under Diagnostic Code 6204, a 10 percent rating is warranted for occasional dizziness and the maximum schedular rating of 30 percent is warranted for dizziness and occasional staggering. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6204. 

The Board notes that "occasional" is not defined in the rating schedule but is generally defined as occurring at irregular or infrequent intervals." Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (merriam-webster.com/dictionary). "Staggering" is generally defined as moving on unsteadily. Id. 

The Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the Veteran's claim for an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for dizziness.

In a January 2021 VA examination for hypertension, the Veteran reported symptoms of intermittent dizziness and lightheadedness. He reported difficulty changing positions due to intermittent dizziness.

The Veteran presented for VA examination in July 2022. The examiner noted the Veteran does not have any diagnoses of ear or vestibular conditions. The Veteran declined having symptoms of dizziness. The examiner noted that the Veteran does not have symptoms of staggering.

The Veteran presented for VA examination again in April 2025. The Veteran reported that he has symptoms when he bends over or gets up too fast, which last a couple of seconds and occur a couple of times per week. The examiner noted that the Veteran does not have symptoms of staggering. The examiner noted the Veteran's Romberg test was abnormal or positive for unsteadiness.

The Board finds the VA examinations of record adequate. The Veteran reported symptoms of dizziness but did not report symptoms of staggering. The examiners' notations that the Veteran does not experience symptoms of staggering are consistent with the Veteran's VA and private treatment records for the period on appeal, which also do not contain any reports of staggering.

Considering all relevant evidence of record, the Board concludes that the Veteran's dizziness warrants a 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 6204 because the Veteran had symptoms of dizziness. A higher 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 6204 is not warranted unless there are symptoms of occasional staggering. As the evidence does not show the Veteran has symptoms of occasional staggering, a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted.

The Board also considered other diagnostic codes related to the ear affording a rating greater than 10 percent that may be implicated, specifically Diagnostic Code 6205 (Meniere's disease), Diagnostic Code 6207 (loss of auricle), and Diagnostic Code 6208 (malignant neoplasm of the ear). However, there are no diagnoses or evidence of Meniere's disease, loss of auricle, or malignant neoplasm. As such, those diagnostic codes are not for application in this case.

Accordingly, the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of entitlement to a higher rating for dizziness. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply and a higher rating for dizziness is not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

 

 

David Gratz

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Henderson, Catherine

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.