Case A26040058

DANETTE MINCEY · 2026 · Case ID: A26040058

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from October 1983 to October 1987, appeals the denial of an earlier effective date for service connection and a compensable rating for radiculopathy affecting the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, ilioinguinal nerves, and obturator nerves in both lower extremities. The veteran sought an earlier effective date of November 1, 2017, for these conditions, which were initially granted service connection with an August 15, 2019, effective date. The Board reviewed VA examinations from November 2017, April 2018, and August 2019. While the veteran and his attorney asserted symptoms consistent with radiculopathy, the Board found the medical evidence prior to August 2019, including the November 2017 and April 2018 VA examinations, did not support a diagnosis of radiculopathy for the specific nerves at issue. The August 2019 examination did find moderate incomplete paralysis of these nerves. However, the Board determined that this level of impairment, characterized by significant sensory changes and some motor changes of a lower degree, did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under the relevant diagnostic codes. The Board denied the claims for an earlier effective date and for a compensable rating, finding that the evidence did not establish entitlement prior to August 15, 2019, and that the impairment did not rise above moderate incomplete paralysis.

Rationale

No probative evidence of diagnosis prior to August 15, 2019; VA examinations in Nov 2017 and Apr 2018 did not report this condition; Impairment did not exceed moderate incomplete paralysis

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

EARLIER EFFECTIVE DATE

Docket No.

210224-143037

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040058
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 210224-143037
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

An effective date earlier than August 15, 2019 for service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerve of the thigh is denied.

An effective date earlier than August 15, 2019 for service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerve of the thigh is denied.

An effective date earlier than August 15, 2019 for service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the ilioinguinal nerve is denied.

An effective date earlier than August 15, 2019 for service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the ilioinguinal nerve is denied.

An effective date earlier than August 15, 2019 for service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the obturator nerve is denied.

An effective date earlier than August 15, 2019 for service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the obturator nerve is denied.

A compensable rating for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerve of the thigh is denied.

A compensable rating for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerve of the thigh is denied.

A compensable rating for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the ilioinguinal nerve is denied.

A compensable rating for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the ilioinguinal nerve is denied.

A compensable rating for left lower extremity radiculopathy of the obturator nerve is denied.

A compensable rating for right lower extremity radiculopathy of the obturator nerve is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Regarding the period prior to August 15, 2019, there is no probative evidence of radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, or the obturator nerves.

2. The Veteran's radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves manifested in no more than moderate incomplete paralysis during the period on appeal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria are not met for an effective date earlier than August 15, 2019 for service connection for left and/or right lower extremity radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerve of the thigh, for left and/or right lower extremity radiculopathy of the ilioinguinal nerve, and for left and/or right lower extremity radiculopathy of the obturator nerve. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400.

2. The criteria are not met for a compensable rating for left and/or right lower extremity radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerve of the thigh. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8529.

3. The criteria are not met for a compensable rating for left and/or right lower extremity radiculopathy of the ilioinguinal nerve. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8530.

4. The criteria are not met for a compensable rating for left and/or right lower extremity radiculopathy of the obturator nerve. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8528.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1983 to October 1987, in the United States Marine Corps.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2020 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In February 2021, the Veteran filed a timely VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, electing the Hearing docket.

In March 2025, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is of record.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2020 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In February 2021, the Veteran filed a timely VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, electing the Hearing docket.

In March 2025, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is of record.

Given the Veteran's selection of the Hearing docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the rating decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If any evidence was submitted outside of these evidence windows, it was not considered. If the Veteran would like any such evidence to be considered, the Veteran may file a supplemental claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

The Board notes that the Veteran included the issue of increased ratings for his back disability on his February 2021 VA Form 10182. However, the Veteran's February 2021 Form 10182 here is not a valid appeal of the March 2020 rating decision regarding his back rating as the March 2020 decision increasing his back rating was issued in connection with an increased rating appeal pending in the legacy system and therefore was not an "initial decision" that can be appealed under the AMA. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2.

The Veteran has a long-standing legacy appeal originating from a January 2018 rating decision regarding his back rating. The Veteran filed a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD) in February 2018. The March 2020 rating decision on appeal notes that it is being issued in response to the Veteran's February 2018 NOD. In addition, a March 2020 Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued in conjunction with the March 2020 rating decision. The March 2020 SOC includes the issues of higher ratings for the Veteran's back disability prior to August 15, 2019, from August 15 to 28, 2019, and from August 29, 2019. In the Veteran's May 2020 Form 9, the Veteran appealed all of these issues. That appeal came before the Board in August 2023, at which time the Board remanded the issues of higher ratings for the Veteran's back disability for further development.

In order to opt a legacy appeal into the modernized (AMA) system, the appellant must 1) elect the AMA system under the rapid appeals modernization program (RAMP), 2) elect the AMA system following issuance on or after February 19, 2019, of a statement or supplemental statement of the case (SOC or SSOC) within the time allowed for filing a substantive appeal, or 3) for notices of decisions prior to February 19, 2019, the appellant elects to participate in a test program of the AMA system. 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(d). Here, the Veteran has not taken any such actions. Thus, the issue of increased ratings for the Veteran's back disability is not on appeal here. This issue remains open within the legacy system and accordingly will be addressed in a separate Board decision issued under the legacy system.

In contrast, the March 2020 rating decision was an initial decision regarding the issues of entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves. The Veteran's effective dates for service connection and initial ratings for those conditions are accordingly properly on appeal here.

Earlier effective date claims

The effective date for a grant of service connection will be the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year after separation from service. Otherwise, the effective date for an award based on an initial claim or supplemental claim 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.

In the March 2020 rating decision on appeal, an effective date of August 15, 2019 was assigned for service connection for radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves. The Veteran contends that an earlier effective date of November 1, 2017 is warranted.

The Board notes that these claims have an unusual procedural history as service connection was found to be warranted during the pendency of a legacy appeal
claim or supplemental claim 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.

The Board notes that these claims have an unusual procedural history as service connection was found to be warranted during the pendency of a legacy appeal for higher ratings for the Veteran's back disability. Accordingly, the Board finds that the date of claim here is the Veteran's November 2017 claim for an increased rating for his back disability.

Therefore, the proper effective date here for service connection for the above nerve conditions will be the date of the Veteran's November 2017 claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later.

VA peripheral neuropathy examinations were obtained during the period on appeal in November 2017, April 2018, and August 2019.

At the November 2017 examination, the Veteran reported worsening of numbness and tingling in his lower extremities and noted pain in his left groin. The examiner reported less than normal (4/5) strength in the knees and ankles and decreased (1+) reflexes in the knees and ankles. Sensory testing in the right lower extremity was normal. Sensory testing in the left lower extremity showed decreased sensation to light touch. The examiner reported no muscle atrophy and no trophic changes. The examiner reported that the Veteran walks stooped over with a limp to the right side due to his back pain. The examiner noted no use of assistive devices. Regarding the Veteran's lower extremity nerves, the examiner concluded that the Veteran had moderate incomplete paralysis of the sciatic and femoral nerves bilaterally. The examiner reported that the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves were all normal bilaterally.

(The Board notes that the Veteran has been separately service-connected for his sciatic peripheral neuropathy and femoral radiculopathy throughout the period on appeal.)

At the April 2018 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his lower extremity neuropathy symptoms onset in 2012 with tingling and numbness down his left leg. He reported that he now had a burning pain in his left groin, that he limps, and has issues raising his right leg. The examiner characterized the Veteran's symptoms as moderate constant pain bilaterally, moderate intermittent pain bilaterally, and moderate paresthesias/dysesthesias bilaterally. Upon testing, the examiner reported normal muscle strength and normal reflexes. Sensory testing showed decreased sensation to light touch bilaterally. The examiner reported that the Veteran's gait is abnormal due to back pain. The examiner noted no use of assistive devices. The examiner reported no muscle atrophy and no trophic changes. Regarding the nerves affected, the examiner reported only moderate incomplete paralysis of the sciatic and femoral nerves bilaterally.

At the August 2019 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran's lower extremity numbness and tingling was progressively worsening. The examiner characterized the Veteran's lower extremity symptoms as moderate constant pain bilaterally, moderate intermittent pain bilaterally, moderate paresthesias/dysesthesias bilaterally, and moderate numbness bilaterally. Muscle strength testing showed less than normal (4/5) strength in the knees and ankles. Reflexes were normal. Sensory testing showed decreased sensation to light touch. The examiner reported no muscle atrophy and no trophic changes. Regarding the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves, the examiner concluded that these nerves had moderate incomplete paralysis bilaterally.

At his Board hearing, the Veteran's attorney testified that symptoms related to the external subcutaneous nerve of the thigh manifest as pain, numbness, or spasms on the front or outsides of the thigh. The Veteran testified that since 2017, he has had cramps on the outside of his thighs, as well as numbness. He testified that he has also experienced tingling that radiates from the low back down through his hip to his knee and sometimes to his toes.

The Veteran's attorney testified that ilioinguinal nerve symptoms manifest as pain, numbness, and tingling in the lower abdomen into the groin and upper thigh. The Veteran testified that since 2017, he has had cramps in the abdomen area, down to his groin
Veteran's attorney testified that symptoms related to the external subcutaneous nerve of the thigh manifest as pain, numbness, or spasms on the front or outsides of the thigh. The Veteran testified that since 2017, he has had cramps on the outside of his thighs, as well as numbness. He testified that he has also experienced tingling that radiates from the low back down through his hip to his knee and sometimes to his toes.

The Veteran's attorney testified that obturator nerve symptoms manifest as pain, weakness, and numbness, also in the inner thigh but going down lower towards the knee. The Veteran testified that he also experiences such symptoms and noted that his knees started getting weak back in 2017 and that his thigh size is half of what it was before his symptoms started.

However, upon review of the entire record on appeal (including the Veteran's VA and private treatment records), the Board finds that there is no medical evidence of radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, or the obturator nerves prior to the August 2019 VA peripheral neuropathy examination. The Veteran's VA treatment records and private treatment records prior to that time are negative for any such diagnoses.

In addition, as noted above, VA peripheral neuropathy examinations were also conducted during the period on appeal in November 2017 and April 2018 and those examinations did not report any condition of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, or the obturator nerves.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves was present as of 2017. However, while the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, he has not shown that he has specialized training sufficient to render a diagnosis of radiculopathy. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). Similarly, while the Veteran's attorney has attempted to categorize the Veteran's symptoms as manifestations of radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves, the Veteran's attorney has not shown that he has specialized training sufficient to render a diagnosis of radiculopathy. The Board also notes that the Veteran suffers from numerous neurological and musculoskeletal disabilities, rendering the Veteran's disability picture particularly complicated. Accordingly, the Board finds the findings of the medical professionals who conducted the November 2017 and April 2018 examinations to be more probative than the Veteran's and his attorney's lay assertions. The VA examiners considered the Veteran's reports of symptoms, conducted in-person examinations, and set forth the examination findings in thorough reports.

(The Board also notes that as the Veteran's testimony was added to the record after the March 2020 rating decision on appeal, no duty to assist error can have occurred regarding this evidence.)

In sum, the competent medical evidence of record not only shows an absence of such diagnoses prior to August 2019, but shows that the Veteran was assessed for these conditions twice prior during the period on appeal-in November 2017 and April 2018-and found to not yet have the conditions.

Regarding the period between the April 2018 and August 2019 examinations, no earlier date of entitlement to service connection is factually ascertainable. See Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 n. 4 (2015) (noting regarding ratings increases that such should not be "assigned mechanically" as of the date of an examination, but that the date of an increase must be factually ascertainable). See id. There is no medical evidence from this period of diagnoses of radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, or the obturator nerves. Further, there is no lay evidence of a particular time of onset between April 2018 and August 2019 as the Veteran has testified that his relevant symptoms onset in 2017 or earlier.

Accordingly, the Board finds no probative indication in the record that the Veteran was suffering from radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, or the obturator nerves prior to August 15, 2019. As no such disabilities are shown prior
be factually ascertainable). See id. There is no medical evidence from this period of diagnoses of radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, or the obturator nerves. Further, there is no lay evidence of a particular time of onset between April 2018 and August 2019 as the Veteran has testified that his relevant symptoms onset in 2017 or earlier.

Accordingly, the Board finds no probative indication in the record that the Veteran was suffering from radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, or the obturator nerves prior to August 15, 2019. As no such disabilities are shown prior to August 15, 2019, entitlement to service connection for these conditions did not arise prior to August 15, 2019. As the proper effective date is the later of the date of claim or the date entitlement arose, the Board finds that the proper effective date for service connection for these conditions is August 15, 2019, the date entitlement arose. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

In sum, a review of the record does not reveal any basis upon which an effective date earlier than August 15, 2019 is warranted under the law. The pertinent legal authority governing effective dates is clear and specific, and the Board is bound by that authority. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

Increased rating claims

Disability ratings are intended to represent the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability and are determined by comparing the symptomatology to the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Different ratings may be assigned for different periods of time for the same disorder if the facts show distinct time periods with different levels of disability. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). If two ratings are potentially applicable, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability 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.

In general, all disabilities, including those arising from a single disease entity, are rated separately, and all disability ratings are then combined in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. Pyramiding, the evaluation of the same disability, or the same manifestation of a disability, under different diagnostic codes, is to be avoided when rating a veteran's service-connected disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14.

In the March 2020 rating decision on appeal, noncompensable evaluations were assigned for radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves. The Veteran contends that 10 percent evaluations are warranted for each of these conditions.

As the Veteran's claims for higher ratings stem from his initial ratings for these conditions, the appeal period begins on August 15, 2019, the date of service connection.

The Board notes that the Veteran has also asserted entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 14, 2018 for his total disability rating due to individual unemployability (TDIU) as part of his increased rating claims here. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). However, as the period on appeal here regarding the Veteran's increased rating claims begins on August 15, 2019 (i.e., later than March 14, 2018), no earlier effective date for TDIU is possible here. The Board notes that the issue of an earlier effective date for TDIU remains on appeal in the Veteran's pending legacy case. See September 2024 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC).

The Veteran's radiculopathy conditions at issue here are rated under Diagnostic Code 8529 for involvement of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, Diagnostic Code 8530 for involvement of the ilioinguinal nerves, and Diagnostic Code 8528 for involvement of the obturator nerves. Under these diagnostic codes, mild to moderate paralysis is rated as noncompensable. Severe to complete paralysis is rated as 10 percent disabling.
14, 2018), no earlier effective date for TDIU is possible here. The Board notes that the issue of an earlier effective date for TDIU remains on appeal in the Veteran's pending legacy case. See September 2024 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC).

The Veteran's radiculopathy conditions at issue here are rated under Diagnostic Code 8529 for involvement of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, Diagnostic Code 8530 for involvement of the ilioinguinal nerves, and Diagnostic Code 8528 for involvement of the obturator nerves. Under these diagnostic codes, mild to moderate paralysis is rated as noncompensable. Severe to complete paralysis is rated as 10 percent disabling. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Codes 8528, 8529, 8530.

The term "incomplete paralysis" indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type picture for complete paralysis. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating should be for the mild or, at most, the moderate degree. Id.

The Board observes that the words mild, moderate, and severe are not defined in the Rating Schedule. Accordingly, the Board finds the general guidance provided in VA's Adjudication Procedures Manual (the M21-1) regarding evaluations of incomplete paralysis of the peripheral nerves to be relevant here. See Overton v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 257, 264 (2018) (the Board is required to discuss any relevant provisions contained in the M21-1 as part of its duty to provide adequate reasons or bases). The Board will accordingly discuss and apply the relevant M21-1 provisions here. See Lemon v. McDonough, No. 21-3949, 2022 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1998, *7-8 (Dec. 16, 2022) (mem dec) (Toth, J.) (concluding that, given the relevance of these provisions to rating disabilities of the peripheral nerves, "the Board's failure to mention the M21-1's relevant guidance in this area constitutes clear error); see also Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 252, 254 (1992) (single judge decisions may be relied upon for any persuasiveness or reasoning they contain).

The M21-1 describes mild incomplete paralysis as a disability "limited to sensory deficits that are lower graded, less persistent, or affecting a smaller area." Part V, sbpt. iii, ch. 12, sec. A.2.c. Moderate incomplete paralysis, per the M21-1, should be "reserved for the most significant cases of sensory-only impairment," where the sensory involvement covers "a larger area in the nerve distribution." Id. M21-1 examples of a moderate disability include "combinations of significant sensory changes and reflex or motor changes of a lower degree" or "motor and/or reflex impairment such as weakness or diminished or hyperactive reflexes (with or without sensory impairment) graded as medically moderate." Id. The M21-1 also provides guidance on the term "severe," which is applicable when there is "motor and/or reflex impairment (for example, atrophy, weakness, or diminished or hyperactive reflexes) at a grade reflecting a very high level of limitation or deficit. Id.

It should also be noted that use of descriptive terminology such as mild by medical examiners, although an element of evidence to be considered by the Board, is not dispositive of an issue. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.6.

As discussed above, the Veteran underwent a VA peripheral neuropathy examination in August 2019. At that time, the examiner characterized the Veteran's symptoms as moderate constant pain bilaterally, moderate intermittent pain bilaterally, moderate paresthesias/dysesthesias bilaterally, and moderate numbness bilaterally. Muscle strength testing showed less than normal (4/5) strength in the knees and ankles. Reflexes were normal. Sensory testing showed decreased sensation to light touch. The examiner reported no muscle atrophy and no trophic changes. Regarding the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves, the examiner concluded that these nerves had moderate incomplete paralysis bilaterally.

The Veteran's treatment records from the period on appeal do not contain any evidence of diagnoses of radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, or the obturator nerves; thus, such records do not contain any evidence regarding the severity of these conditions.

Based on the above, the Board finds that no more than moderate incomplete
) strength in the knees and ankles. Reflexes were normal. Sensory testing showed decreased sensation to light touch. The examiner reported no muscle atrophy and no trophic changes. Regarding the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves, the examiner concluded that these nerves had moderate incomplete paralysis bilaterally.

Based on the above, the Board finds that no more than moderate incomplete paralysis during the period on appeal has been shown. The VA examiner characterized the Veteran's complaints as moderate constant/intermittent pain, moderate paresthesias and/or dysesthesias, and moderate numbness. The Veteran testified that he has pain, numbness, tingling, spasms, cramps, and weakness in the affected areas. Upon examination in August 2019, the Veteran had no muscle atrophy and muscle strength was 4/5, which the Board finds to be akin to "motor changes of a lower degree." Sensory testing showed at most decreased, and not absent, sensation to light touch. Reflexes were normal. Thus, the Board finds that the record shows, at most, significant sensory changes together with motor changes of a lower degree. Accordingly, the evidence is consistent with a finding of moderate incomplete paralysis. See M21-1 (examples of a moderate disability include "combinations of significant sensory changes and reflex or motor changes of a lower degree" or "motor and/or reflex impairment such as weakness or diminished or hyperactive reflexes (with or without sensory impairment) graded as medically moderate"). Neither motor nor reflex impairment reflecting a very high level of limitation or deficit has been shown, such as would more nearly approximate severe incomplete paralysis.

(Continued on the next page)

In sum, the Board finds that the Veteran's radiculopathy of the external cutaneous nerves of the thigh, the ilioinguinal nerves, and the obturator nerves manifested in no more than moderate incomplete paralysis during the period on appeal; accordingly, compensable ratings are not warranted under Diagnostic Codes 8528, 8529, and/or 8530.

As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable and the claims for higher ratings are denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

Danette Mincey

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board M. Jesteadt

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