FOOT INJURIES RESIDUALS OF

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Army from June 2007 to June 2010, appeals the denial of an increased rating for his bilateral foot disability, which is currently rated at 10 percent for each foot under Diagnostic Code 5284. The veteran sought an increased evaluation, arguing his symptoms of pain, stiffness, and weakness, which affect his ability to stand, walk, or run for prolonged periods, warranted a higher rating. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the March 2025 VA examination, which diagnosed moderate severity residuals for both feet, impacting weight-bearing and work ability. However, the Board found that the evidence did not demonstrate "moderately severe" or "severe" impairment, nor did it support ratings under other diagnostic codes for foot conditions. The Board noted that the veteran's symptoms during flare-ups, including pain affecting prolonged standing or walking, were already contemplated within the existing 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5284. The Board also considered the veteran's lay statements regarding his symptoms, acknowledging his competence to report them, but found the evidence persuasively against an increased rating. Consequently, the Board denied the appeal for an increased rating for both the right and left foot disabilities.

Rationale

Evidence does not support "moderately severe" or "severe" impairment.; Symptoms during flare-ups are already contemplated in the 10% rating.; Evidence persuasively against assignment of rating in excess of 10 percent.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040075
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 251104-603697
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an increased evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a right foot disability, is denied.

Entitlement to an increased evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left foot disability, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Review of the evidence does not show the Veteran's right foot disability has been manifested by moderately severe symptoms.

2. Review of the evidence does not show the Veteran's left foot disability has been manifested by moderately severe symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent, for a right foot disability, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§1155, 5107; 38C.F.R. §§3.159, 4.3, 4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.56, 4.59, 4.71a, 4.73; Diagnostic Codes 5284.

2. 2. The criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent, for a left foot disability, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§1155, 5107; 38C.F.R. §§3.159, 4.3, 4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.56, 4.59, 4.71a, 4.73; Diagnostic Codes 5284.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served in active-duty service with the Army from June 2007 to June 2010.

This matter is on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision; as such, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. The Veteran submitted a November 2025 10182 form selecting the Evidence Review option.

The Board notes that the April 2025 rating decision on appeal initially granted service connection for a bilateral foot disability under Diagnostic Code 5277. During the pendency of the appeal, a Novemeber 2025 rating decision recharacterized the Veteran's bilateral foot disability as separate service connected disabilities for a right and left foot under Diagnostic Code 5284 applicable for the entire appeal period.

As this did not constitute a full grant of the benefit sought for the entire appeal period, the Veteran's claim for a higher evaluation remains in appellate status. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38-39.

Increased Rating

Disability evaluations are determined by the application of VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 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 civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321 (a), 4.1.

VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations that are potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusions. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991).

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. 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.

The Board will consider whether separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found, a practice known as "staged ratings." Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-27 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

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 required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

If the evidence for and against a claim is in equipoise, the claim will be granted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. A claim will be denied only if the
 facts found, a practice known as "staged ratings." Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-27 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

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 required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

If the evidence for and against a claim is in equipoise, the claim will be granted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. A claim will be denied only if the evidence is persuasively against the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56 (1990). Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability should be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

Right and left foot disability

The Veteran is service connected for a right and left foot disability; both are evaluated at 10 percent each under Diagnostic Code 5284.

The Board notes that during the pendency of the appeal, portions of the rating schedule addressing the musculoskeletal system were revised effective February 7, 2021; however, the diagnostic codes used to evaluate the Veteran's right and left foot disability was not changed.

Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or infection in parts of the system, to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40. Functional loss may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior in undertaking the motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (discussing facial expressions such as wincing, muscle spasm, crepitation, etc.). Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part that becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. Excess fatigability and incoordination should be taken into account in addition to more movement than normal, less movement than normal, and weakened movement. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45.

The intent of the schedule is to recognize painful motion with joint or periarticular pathology as productive of disability. It is the intention to recognize actually painful, unstable, or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, as entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. Although the first sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 refers only to arthritis, the regulation applies to joint conditions other than arthritis. Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1, 3-5 (2011).

In evaluating disabilities of the musculoskeletal system, it is necessary to consider, along with the schedular criteria, functional loss due to flare-ups of pain, fatigability, incoordination, pain on movement, and weakness. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995).

Although pain may cause functional loss, pain itself does not constitute functional loss. Rather, pain must affect some aspect of "the normal working movements of the body," such as "excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance," in order to constitute functional loss. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 38-43 (2011) (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 4.40).

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) clarified that although pain may be a cause or manifestation of functional loss, limitation of motion due to pain is not necessarily rated at the same level as functional loss where motion is impeded. See Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011); cf. Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 34 (1999); Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 417, 421 (1995); Schafrath, at 592. Instead, the Mitchell Court explained that pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45, the possible manifestations of functional loss include decreased or abnormal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, or endurance (38 C.F.R. § 4.40 ), as well as less or more movement than is normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and pain on movement (as well as swelling, deformity, and at
 App. 32 (2011); cf. Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 34 (1999); Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 417, 421 (1995); Schafrath, at 592. Instead, the Mitchell Court explained that pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40 and 4.45, the possible manifestations of functional loss include decreased or abnormal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, or endurance (38 C.F.R. § 4.40 ), as well as less or more movement than is normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, and pain on movement (as well as swelling, deformity, and atrophy) that affects stability, standing, and weight-bearing (38 C.F.R. § 4.45 ).

Pursuant to Diagnostic Code 5284, moderate residuals of foot injuries are rated 10 percent disabling; moderately severe residuals of foot injuries are rated 20 percent disabling; and severe residuals of foot injuries are rated as 30 percent disabling. A Note to Diagnostic Code 5284 provides that foot injuries with actual loss of use of the foot are to be rated 40 percent disabling. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a.

Neither the Rating Schedule nor the regulations provide definitions for descriptive words such as "mild," "moderate," "moderately severe," and "severe." Sellers v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 157 (2018). Rather than applying a mechanical formula, the Board must instead evaluate all of the evidence to the end that its decisions are "equitable and just." 38 C.F.R. § 4.6.

In a March 2025 VA examination, the Veteran reported symptoms of pain, stiffness, and weakness.

The Veteran reported flareups and functional impairment affecting the ability to prolonged stand, walk, or run.

The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with right and left foot strain at moderate severity. The examiner noted the diagnosis chronically compromises weight-bearing but the Veteran did not report use of arch supports or orthotics.

The examiner found the Veteran's disability resulted in decreased movement; weakened movement; instability of station; interference with standing; pain, fatigue, and weakness; and lack of endurance.

The examiner noted the Veteran's symptoms "negatively impacted the ability to work" to include the ability to prolonged stand, walk or run.

After review of the record, the Board finds the evidence of record does not support an increased evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's right and left foot disability.

As noted above, a 20 percent under DC 5284 is for moderately severe residuals of foot injuries.

The evidence of record to include VA examinations demonstrates that the Veteran's left and right foot condition is manifested by pain, stiffness, and weakness; and impacts the Veteran's functional ability to prolonged stand, walk, or run.  However, the medical record and examinations do not show a finding of "moderately severe" or "severe" impairment of the right or left foot. In the most recent March 2025 VA examination, the examiner found the Veteran's symptoms of moderate severity affecting the right and left foot.

The Board has also considered whether increased ratings greater than 10 percent are warranted under other diagnostic codes pertaining to the foot. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). 

However, as the evidence does not reflect diagnoses of weak foot, claw foot, hallux rigidus, hammer toe, malunion of the tarsal or metatarsal bones, or flatfoot, increased evaluations are not warranted under those diagnostic codes. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5276, 5277, 5278, 5280, 5281, 5282, 5283. 

The Board notes that the Veteran is already service connected for a bilateral knee and bilateral ankle disability.

The Board has also considered the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, and DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). However, increased ratings are not warranted during the period on appeal on the basis of functional loss due to pain in this case, as those symptoms are already contemplated by the criteria of Diagnostic Code 5284. Although the Veteran reported flare ups of the right and left foot condition affecting the ability to prolonged stand or walk, the basis for the current ratings is the pain experienced during those flare ups. Accordingly, the Veteran's symptoms during flare ups are fully considered in the currently assigned rating.

The Board has also considered neurological impairment but the evidence does not show complaints, treatments, or diagnosis relating to any neurological impairment relating to the Veteran's right and left
59, and DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). However, increased ratings are not warranted during the period on appeal on the basis of functional loss due to pain in this case, as those symptoms are already contemplated by the criteria of Diagnostic Code 5284. Although the Veteran reported flare ups of the right and left foot condition affecting the ability to prolonged stand or walk, the basis for the current ratings is the pain experienced during those flare ups. Accordingly, the Veteran's symptoms during flare ups are fully considered in the currently assigned rating.

The Board has also considered neurological impairment but the evidence does not show complaints, treatments, or diagnosis relating to any neurological impairment relating to the Veteran's right and left foot disability. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veterans has no additional neurological impairment.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's own reports of symptomatology regarding their disabilities. Lay people are competent to report on matters observed or within their personal knowledge. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Therefore, the Veteran is competent to provide statements of symptoms which are observable to their senses. However, Veteran is not competent to interpret accurately clinical findings pertaining to their foot disabilities as this requires highly specialized knowledge and training. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(1). See also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasively against the assignment of a rating evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran's right and left foot. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

As the evidence is persuasively against the award of an increased evaluation, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7.

 

 

MICHAEL LANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Yang, Jonathan

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.