Case A26040635

R. BISIGNANI · 2026 · Case ID: A26040635

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Army from February 1968 to February 1971, appeals the denial of increased disability ratings for weakness in his right thumb, little finger, index finger, long finger, and ring finger, and the denial of Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU) prior to March 1, 2023. The Board granted an earlier effective date of November 29, 2021, for service connection for weakness in all five right hand fingers, finding that entitlement arose no later than March 2021, prior to the Veteran's November 29, 2021 claim. The Board denied increased ratings for the fingers, determining that the Veteran already received the maximum available ratings under the applicable diagnostic codes (DC 5228 for the thumb, DC 5229 for the index and long fingers, and DC 5230 for the little and ring fingers). The Board found that the Veteran's symptoms, while limiting, did not meet the criteria for higher ratings or analogous ratings under other diagnostic codes. Regarding TDIU, the Board denied entitlement prior to March 1, 2023, finding that while the Veteran's disabilities were significant, they did not completely prevent substantially gainful employment, particularly considering his business ownership history and potential for accommodations. However, the Board granted TDIU from March 1, 2023, to July 21, 2025, finding that the Veteran's combined service-connected disabilities, including a stroke effective May 24, 2024, rendered him unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment during that period. The TDIU claim for July 22, 2025, was dismissed as moot because the Veteran was already receiving a 100 percent combined rating.

Rationale

Service connection granted with earlier effective date; Increased rating denied due to maximum available rating under DC 5228; No muscle injury diagnosis; weakness due to fasciotomy/stroke

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

TDIU

Docket No.

260303-634848

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040635
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 260303-634848
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right thumb finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm), is granted.

Entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right little finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm), is granted.

Entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right index finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm), is granted.

Entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right long finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm), is granted.

Entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right ring finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm), is granted.

Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right thumb finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm) is denied.

Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for right little finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm) is denied.

Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right index finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm) is denied.

Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right long finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm) is denied.

Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for right ring finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy (claimed as bad muscle and joint pain right arm) is denied.

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on unemployability due to service connected disabilities (TDIU) prior to March 1, 2023, is denied.

Entitlement to TDIU from March 1, 2023 to July 21, 2025, is granted.

Entitlement to TDIU from July 22, 2025, is dismissed as moot.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's right hand weakness of all fingers manifested no later than March 2021, such that entitlement arose at that time.

2. The Veteran's earliest claim for service connection for a right hand disability occurred on November 29, 2021; thus, the date of claim was later than the date entitlement arose.

3. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's right thumb did not manifest by limitation of motion with a gap of more than two inches (5.1 cm) between the thumb pad and fingers; the Veteran did not have ankylosis, or symptoms analogous to amputation.

4. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's right little finger was assigned a noncompensable rating, which is the maximum possible under the diagnostic code that evaluates limitation of motion of the little finger; the Veteran did not have ankylosis or symptoms analogous to amputation.

5. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's right index finger was assigned a 10 percent rating, which is the maximum possible under the diagnostic code that evaluates limitation of motion of the index finger; the Veteran did not have ankylosis, or symptoms analogous to amputation.

6. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's right long finger was assigned a 10 percent rating, which is the maximum possible under the diagnostic code that evaluates limitation of motion of the long finger; the Veteran did not have ankylosis, or symptoms analogous to amputation.

7. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's right ring finger was assigned a noncompensable rating, which is the maximum possible under the diagnostic code that evaluates limitation of motion of the ring finger; the Veteran did not have ankylosis or symptoms analogous to amputation.

8. Prior to March 1, 2023, the Veteran's service connected disabilities did not prevent him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation.

9. From March 1, 2023 to July 21, 2025, the Veteran's service connected disabilities prevented him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation.

10. From July 22, 2025
have ankylosis, or symptoms analogous to amputation.

8. Prior to March 1, 2023, the Veteran's service connected disabilities did not prevent him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation.

9. From March 1, 2023 to July 21, 2025, the Veteran's service connected disabilities prevented him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation.

10. From July 22, 2025, the Veteran is in receipt of a 100 percent combined rating, and TDIU is not warranted based on a single disability of the right hand fingers alone, which renders the issue of entitlement to TDIU moot for this period.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right thumb finger weakness status post fasciotomy are met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500, 3.400.

2. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right little finger weakness status post fasciotomy are met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500, 3.400.

3. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right index finger weakness status post fasciotomy are met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500, 3.400.

4. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right long finger weakness status post fasciotomy are met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500, 3.400.

5. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for right ring finger weakness status post fasciotomy are met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500, 3.400.

6. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right thumb finger weakness are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5228.

7. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable disability rating for right little finger weakness are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5230.

8. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right index finger weakness are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5229.

9. The criteria for entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right long finger weakness are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5229.

10. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable disability rating for right ring finger weakness are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5230.

11. The criteria for entitlement to TDIU prior to March 1, 202
1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5229.

11. The criteria for entitlement to TDIU prior to March 1, 2023, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16, 4.19; Witkowski v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 459 (2025).

12. The criteria for entitlement to TDIU from March 1, 2023 to July 21, 2025, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16, 4.19.

13. The appeal regarding entitlement to TDIU from July 22, 2025, is moot. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.202.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from February 1968 to February 1971. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2026 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office.

In the March 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2026 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Although the AOJ only adjudicated the issue of the appropriate disability rating for weakness in the Veteran's right hand fingers, the Board finds that the record also raises a TDIU claim based on evidence of record prior to the rating decision on appeal. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009); see also January 2026 VA Examination Report (finding that the Veteran's right hand weakness caused inability to perform occupational tasks with the right hand). Accordingly, TDIU has been added as an issue on appeal.

Additionally, in the March 2026 VA Form 10182, the Veteran challenged the "Evaluation of Right Arm Muscle Weakness" and an earlier effective date for "Right Arm Muscle Weakness," identifying the January 23, 2026 rating decision as the decision on appeal. As the January 23, 2026 rating decision granted this issue as weakness of all the Veteran's right hand fingers, the Board interprets the Veteran's March 2026 VA Form 10182 as a challenge to the rating and effective date for weakness of all fingers. In other words, the Board finds that referencing right arm muscle weakness was the Veteran's short-hand way of referencing the weakness of all fingers, as he clearly identified the appeal from the January 2026 rating decision which clarified that the weakness of each finger had been claimed as right arm muscle and joint pain.

This matter has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.800(c).

The Board recognizes the Court's decision in Williams v. McDonough, requiring the Board to afford the Veteran the opportunity to modify his
's right hand fingers, the Board interprets the Veteran's March 2026 VA Form 10182 as a challenge to the rating and effective date for weakness of all fingers. In other words, the Board finds that referencing right arm muscle weakness was the Veteran's short-hand way of referencing the weakness of all fingers, as he clearly identified the appeal from the January 2026 rating decision which clarified that the weakness of each finger had been claimed as right arm muscle and joint pain.

This matter has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.800(c).

The Board recognizes the Court's decision in Williams v. McDonough, requiring the Board to afford the Veteran the opportunity to modify his docket election in the absence of a waiver of this right. 37 Vet. App. 305, 310 (2024) ("Putting all this together, we agree with Mr. Williams that the Board cannot issue a decision until the time to modify an NOD under § 20.202(c)(2) has run."). However, as the Veteran's appeal is advanced on the docket, the Board finds that the Veteran has waived his right to modify his docket election and desires his case to be adjudicated as quickly as possible.

Controlling Law - Earlier Effective Dates

A claim is a written or electronic communication requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a specific benefit under the laws administered by the VA, submitted on an application form prescribed by the Secretary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p).

An "initial claim" is any complete claim, other than a supplemental claim, for a benefit on a form prescribed by the Secretary. The first initial claim for one or more benefits received by VA is further defined as an "original claim." Initial claims include: (i) a new claim requesting service connection for a disability or grant of a new benefit, and (ii) a claim for increase in a disability evaluation rating or rate of a benefit paid based on a change or worsening in condition or circumstance since the last decision issued by VA for the benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p)(1).

Subject to exception, the effective date of an award of disability compensation based on an original claim for direct service connection will generally 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 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(b)(2)(i). The effective date of a claim for an increase will be the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, unless it is factually ascertainable that an increase occurred during the one-year period prior to the filing of a non-initial increased rating claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o); Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Additionally, when an issue has been continuously pursued, the effective date will be either the date of receipt of the initial claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h). Continuous pursuit occurs by the timely filing in succession any of the available review options in 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c) within one year of issuance of a decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h), (c).

1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than January 19, 2026, for the award of service connection for right thumb finger, right little finger, right index finger, right long finger, and right ring finger weakness status post forearm fasciotomy

The Veteran and his representative contend that an earlier effective date for the award of service connection is warranted. See March 2026 VA Form 10182. The Veteran's representative further asserts that entitlement to service connection should have been granted as of the date of a March 1, 2023 claim. See August 2025 VA Form 20-0996. However, because the Board finds the narrow exception in Chisholm applies here, entitlement to service connection for weakness of each finger is warranted as of the date of an earlier November 29, 2021 claim.

A. Date Entitlement Arose

The Veteran's current award of service connection is based on the date of the January 19, 2026 VA examination diagnosing right hand weakness status post forearm fasciotomy. See January 2026 VA Examination Report. However, even according to that
The Veteran's representative further asserts that entitlement to service connection should have been granted as of the date of a March 1, 2023 claim. See August 2025 VA Form 20-0996. However, because the Board finds the narrow exception in Chisholm applies here, entitlement to service connection for weakness of each finger is warranted as of the date of an earlier November 29, 2021 claim.

A. Date Entitlement Arose

The Veteran's current award of service connection is based on the date of the January 19, 2026 VA examination diagnosing right hand weakness status post forearm fasciotomy. See January 2026 VA Examination Report. However, even according to that VA examination report, the Veteran's right hand disability of all fingers first manifested in 2021. Although the examination report diagnosed the condition at that time, in describing the Veteran's medical history, the examiner listed an onset date of 2021. The examiner indicated that the Veteran had a myocardial infarction and necessitated a stent utilizing the Veteran's right wrist. After the surgery, the Veteran developed compartment syndrome and necessitated a fasciotomy. Following the fasciotomy, the Veteran's right hand developed weakness with holding items and writing.

The other evidence of record supports the findings of the January 2026 VA examination report regarding a 2021 onset. According to a March 2021 VA treatment record, the Veteran reported post-procedure complications from his fasciotomy. A March 2021 records of VA authorized treatment verified that the Veteran had the fasciotomy on January 11, 2021. See March 2021 VA Treatment Records; see also January 2021 VA Treatment Record (showing right forearm compartment syndrome status post fasciotomy). In January 2022, the Veteran reported limited right hand function and weakness. See January 2022 VA Treatment Record.

While some VA examination reports reflect that the fasciotomy occurred in September 2021, those reports are afforded less probative weight because the Veteran's treatment records show a January 2021 fasciotomy. See, e.g., November 2024 VA Examination Report and Medical Opinion. As the Veteran complained of complications in March 2021, the Board finds that entitlement arose no later than March 2021. However, whether the Veteran's right hand weakness of all fingers occurred right when the fasciotomy occurred in January 2021, a few months later in March 2021, or several months later in September 2021, each of these dates is prior to the filing of the November 29, 2021 claim.

B. Date of Claim

The Veteran continuously pursued his claim for service connection to an initial November 29, 2021 claim. See November 2021 VA Form 21 526EZ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500.

Specifically, the January 2026 rating decision on appeal was issued based on an August 2025 VA Form 20-0996. The August 2025 VA Form 20-0996 was filed within a year of a January 2025 rating decision continuing the denial of service connection for right arm bad muscle and joint pain. The January 2025 rating decision was issued based on an August 2024 VA Form 20-0995. The August 2024 VA Form 20-0995 was filed within a year of the December 2023 rating decision denying service connection for right arm/hand bad muscle and joint pain.

The December 2023 rating decision was issued based on a March 2023 VA Form 21-526EZ. The Board finds that the March 2023 VA Form 21-526EZ is a supplemental claim under Chisholm v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 140 (2025). Chisholm found that an application for TDIU can be considered a supplemental claim for purposes of determining continuous pursuit under certain narrow circumstances, where the Veteran has previously filed a claim for the same or similar benefits on the same or similar basis. See Chisholm v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 140 (2025). The same rationale for a finding that a VA Form 21 8940 can be a supplemental claim equally applies to a VA Form 21 526EZ.

Here, the March 2023 VA Form 21 526EZ is a supplemental claim because the Veteran claimed a similar benefit on a similar basis as the earlier November 29, 2021 VA Form 21-526EZ. By way of background, in a November 29, 2021 VA Form 21-526EZ, the Veteran claimed entitlement to service connection for residuals of a stroke, to include loss of use of hands (muscular/nerve); and scarring of the right arm as due to treatment/surgery for stroke, among other issues. The Veteran also filed a July 2022 VA Form 21-526EZ claiming entitlement to an increased evaluation for coronary artery disease; service connection for a stroke, secondary to service connected coronary artery disease; deep vein thrombosis of the right arm, as secondary to coronary artery disease; and a right arm scar. In relevant part, an October 2022 rating decision continued the evaluation for coronary artery disease status post myocardial infarction; denied service connection for right arm deep vein thrombosis; denied service connection for stroke; and denied service connection for a right arm scar. Then, the Veteran filed the March 2023 VA Form 21 526EZ seeking, in relevant part, entitlement to service connection for bad muscle and joint pain of the legs, hands, arms, and feet.

The March 2023 claim was filed for a similar benefit as the November 2021 VA Form 21-526EZ-with the former claiming service connection for a disability of the right arm, to include the right hand and the latter loss of use of the right hand. Both claims were filed on the same basis, claiming direct service connection. While the November 29, 2021 claim also sought service connection for scarring of the right arm due to surgery from a stroke, this is also a similar basis to the one for which service connection was eventually granted. The AOJ granted service connection for right hand weakness of all fingers and a right anterior forearm scar as secondary to coronary artery disease status post myocardial infarction.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran's March 2023 claim was filed for the same or a similar benefit on the same or a similar basis such that it is a supplemental claim under Chisholm. Because the March 2023 claim was filed within a year of the October 2022 rating decision, the date of claim for effective date purposes is November 29, 2021, the date of the claim upon which the October 2022 rating decision was based. The Veteran did not file an intent to file prior to filing the November 29, 2021 VA Form 21-526EZ (although he filed one the same date). Thus, no earlier date of claim is applicable.

C. Conclusion

Because entitlement to service connection for right hand weakness of all fingers arose prior to the date of the claim for service connection, the date of claim is the appropriate effective date. Entitlement to an effective date of November 29, 2021, but no earlier, for the award of service connection for weakness of the right thumb, little, index, long, and ring fingers is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500, 3.400.

Controlling Law - Increased Ratings

Disability ratings are determined by applying a schedule of ratings that is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R., Part 4. Each disability must be viewed in relation to its history, and the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition should be emphasized. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

When considering the propriety of the initial evaluation assigned, consideration of the medical evidence since the effective date of the award of service connection and consideration of the appropriateness of a "staged" rating are required. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 199, 125-26 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007).

If a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, 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.

Importantly, the evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses is to be avoided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. However, when it is not possible to separate the effects of the service-connected disability from a nonservice-connected condition, such signs and symptoms must be attributed to the service-connected disability. Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181, 182 (1998); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

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. § 4.40; see 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40. Excess fatigability and incoordination should be accounted for, 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. The schedule aims to recognize actually painful, unstable, or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, as entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. 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, as well. 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).

Nonetheless, even when the background factors listed in § 4.40 or 4.45 are relevant when evaluating a disability, the rating is assigned based on the extent to which motion is limited, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a; a separate or higher rating under §§ 4.40 or 4.45 itself is not appropriate. See Thompson v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[I]t is clear that the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran's disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria.").

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).

2. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent
the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran's disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria.").

2. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right thumb finger weakness

3. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for right little finger weakness

4. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right index finger weakness

5. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for right long finger weakness

6. Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for right ring finger weakness

The Veteran seeks a higher rating for his right hand weakness of all fingers. See March 2026 VA Form 10182. The Veteran's attorney contends that the Veteran's disabilities should be rated as a muscle injury under 38 C.F.R. § 4.73. Counsel contends that the Veteran's disabilities warrant a 40 percent rating under Diagnostic Code (DC) 5307 for impairment of flexion and 40 percent under DC 5308 for impairment of extension of muscle groups VII and VIII, respectively. See August 2025 VA Form 20-0996.

As the Board has granted an earlier effective date to November 29, 2021, the period on appeal begins on this date.

Preliminarily, the Board finds the DCs referenced by counsel are inapplicable. Section 4.73 is for rating muscle injuries. Diagnostic code 5307 is for rating limitation of flexion of the wrist and fingers, muscles arising from internal condyle of humerus: flexors of the carpus and long flexors of fingers and thumb; pronator. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.73, DC 5307. Diagnostic code 5308 is for rating limitation of extension of the wrist, fingers, and thumb; abduction of thumb, muscles arising mainly from external condyle of humerus: extensors of carpus, fingers, and thumb; supinator. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.73, DC 5308.

However, these DCs are inapplicable to the facts of the Veteran's case because at no time during the appeal period did the Veteran's right hand have a muscle injury. See January 2026 VA Examination Report ("For the claimant's claimed condition of bad muscle right arm there is no diagnosis because [t]he correct diagnosis for the claimed condition is hand weakness s/p forearm fasciotomy-right."); November 2024 VA Examination Report for Muscle Injuries (no currently diagnosed muscle injury; Veteran has never had an injury to a muscle group of the forearm and hand, to include Group VII and Group VIII); November 2024 VA Examination Report for Shoulder and Arm Conditions ("The [V]eteran does not report any shoulder, arm, or muscle complaints. There is no objective evidence to support a diagnosis of the right shoulder, arm or muscle."); November 2025 VA Medical Opinion (no muscle/joint diagnosis).

Rather, during the appeal period, the Veteran had some muscle weakness due to his service connected stroke, for which the disability rating is not before the Board at this time. See November 2024 VA Examination Report for Central Nervous System (CNS) and Neuromuscular Diseases (indicating that the Veteran had moderate right upper extremity muscle weakness due to a CNS condition). Thus, the DCs referenced by counsel do not apply here.

There were no changes to the relevant diagnostic criteria during the appeal period. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's thumb was rated as 10 percent disabling under DC 5228 for limitation of motion of the thumb. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5228. Diagnostic Code 5228 rates limitation of motion of the thumb based on the size of the gap between the thumb pad and the fingers, with the thumb attempting to oppose the fingers. A noncompensable evaluation is assigned for a gap of less than one inch (2.5 cm.). A 10 percent rating is assigned for a gap of one to two inches (2.5 to 5.1 cm.). A maximum 20 percent rating is assigned for a gap of more than two inches (5.1 cm.).
was rated as 10 percent disabling under DC 5228 for limitation of motion of the thumb. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5228. Diagnostic Code 5228 rates limitation of motion of the thumb based on the size of the gap between the thumb pad and the fingers, with the thumb attempting to oppose the fingers. A noncompensable evaluation is assigned for a gap of less than one inch (2.5 cm.). A 10 percent rating is assigned for a gap of one to two inches (2.5 to 5.1 cm.). A maximum 20 percent rating is assigned for a gap of more than two inches (5.1 cm.). Ratings are the same for the major and minor extremity. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5228.

Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's index and long finger disabilities were each rated as 10 percent disabling for painful motion under DC 5229 for limitation of motion of the index or long finger. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5229. Under DC 5229, a maximum 10 percent rating is warranted for limitation of motion with a gap of one inch (2.5 cm.) or more between the fingertip and the proximal transverse crease of the palm, with the finger flexed to the extent possible, or; with extension limited by 30 degrees.

Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's little finger and ring finger disabilities were rated as noncompensable under DC 5230 for limitation of motion of the little or ring finger. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5230. Under DC 5230, any limitation of motion of the ring or little finger is rated as noncompensable, whether on the major or minor side. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5230.

The Board has thoroughly reviewed all relevant lay and medical evidence of record. While the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases in support of its decision, it is not required to recite every piece of evidence. See Gonzalez v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, for illustrative purposes, the Board summarizes some of the relevant evidence.

During a January 2026 VA examination, the Veteran reported worsening right hand weakness since the onset. His symptoms at the time of the examination were chronic right hand weakness causing inability to hold items or eat well because he is right hand dominant. The Veteran denied flare-ups of the hand, finger or thumb. He reported functional loss, described as the inability to hold items, feed himself with the right hand, or perform occupational tasks.

Initial range of motion testing was performed on the right hand only because the opposite joint was damaged. On active motion, the Veteran's thumb did not have a gap between the pad of the thumb and fingers. The Veteran had pain in all digits with active motion. Passive range of motion testing could not be performed because it would cause the Veteran severe pain. The Veteran was also not able to perform repetitive use testing because of pain.

The Veteran's statements suggested that pain significantly limited his functional ability with repeated use over time. The examiner provided estimated range of motion measurements for each digit and estimated the gap between the pad of the thumb and fingers immediately after repeated use over time as 2.0 cm. The examiner found that there were no additional factors contributing to the Veteran's disability.

Muscle strength testing indicated that the Veteran had 4/5 right hand grip strength, indicating active movement against some resistance. The Veteran did not have muscle atrophy. He did not have ankylosis of any digit. The examiner indicated that due to the Veteran's hand, finger, or thumb condition, there was not functional impairment of an extremity such that no effective functions remained other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation with prosthesis. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's condition impacted his ability to perform any type of occupational task, described as inability to hold items in his hands for extended periods.

The examiner clarified that at the time of the examination, the Veteran did not report taking any medications, prescription or non prescription, to treat his disabilities.

According to a November 2024 VA examination report for muscle injuries, although the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of a muscle injury, his right forearm fasciotomy caused weakness of his right hand; challenges with gripping, grabbing, and holding onto objects; and difficulty writing at the time of the examination. The Veteran denied medication. A November
which would be equally well served by an amputation with prosthesis. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's condition impacted his ability to perform any type of occupational task, described as inability to hold items in his hands for extended periods.

The examiner clarified that at the time of the examination, the Veteran did not report taking any medications, prescription or non prescription, to treat his disabilities.

According to a November 2024 VA examination report for muscle injuries, although the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of a muscle injury, his right forearm fasciotomy caused weakness of his right hand; challenges with gripping, grabbing, and holding onto objects; and difficulty writing at the time of the examination. The Veteran denied medication. A November 2024 VA examination report for shoulder and arm conditions similarly found no diagnosis, but noted the Veteran's limitations in grabbing, gripping, holding objects, and writing with the right hand.

VA treatment records during the appeal period show complaints of limited right hand function, right hand weakness, inability to grasp/grip, and inability to lift household items. See January 2022 VA Treatment Record. In February 2022, the Veteran reported numbness and tingling in his right hand. However, treating providers at that time did not link these symptoms to a diagnosis. The Veteran also complained of inability to write or type, without acute worsening of weakness or pain. See January 2023 VA Treatment Record. Then in July 2023, the Veteran complained of difficulty completing tasks with his right hand, such as typing. He reported worsening weakness. A September 2025 VA treatment record noted impaired fine motor skills in the Veteran's right hand.

The totality of the evidence does not support a higher rating for the evaluation of weakness in any digit of the Veteran's right hand. In making this determination, the Board acknowledges that VA is required "to discount beneficial medication effects when relevant rating criteria do not specifically contemplate medication use," unless such effects are otherwise contemplated in a particular diagnostic code. Ingram v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 130 (2025). However, the Veteran did not take medication to treat his right hand pain/weakness. See January 2026 VA Examination Report. Thus, the Board's decision does not consider any ameliorative effects of medication.

Furthermore, the Board finds the January 2026 VA examination report adequate and highly probative. The examination report is adequate because, although opposite joint testing, passive motion testing, and repetitive use testing could not be performed, the examiner provided an adequate explanation in every instance. Additionally, the examiner clearly considered weightbearing and non weightbearing, finding that there was no evidence of pain on either. See Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016). The examiner also provided estimates of the functional impairment in each finger when the Veteran's disability was at its worst, after repeated use over a period of time. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). Accordingly, because the examination report directly bears on the Veteran's symptoms during the appeal period and considers only symptoms attributable to the Veteran's right hand weakness status post forearm fasciotomy, the report is afforded great probative weight.

Indeed, other evidence of record suggests that other disabilities cause right hand symptomatology. See November 2024 VA Examination Report for CNS and Neuromuscular Diseases (showing limited grip strength and muscle weakness due to the Veteran's service connected stroke); January 2025 VA Treatment Record (showing right hand numbness since an April 2024 carotid stent surgery). As an increased rating for the Veteran's right hand weakness is the only increased rating claim on appeal, the other medical evidence is afforded little weight.

The diagnostic code for the Veteran's little finger and ring finger only allows for a noncompensable rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5230. Accordingly, despite evidence of painful motion in these digits, the Board may not afford a compensable rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. Section 4.59 does not apply because there is no minimum compensable rating pursuant to DC 5230 available to award. See generally Petitti v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 415, 428-29 (2015); Sowers v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 472, 480 (2016) (holding that because there is no minimum compensable rating available under DC 5230 and because the intent of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 is to compensate painful motion with at least the minimum compensable rating, those regulations read together do not entitle a claimant to a compens
able rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. Section 4.59 does not apply because there is no minimum compensable rating pursuant to DC 5230 available to award. See generally Petitti v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 415, 428-29 (2015); Sowers v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 472, 480 (2016) (holding that because there is no minimum compensable rating available under DC 5230 and because the intent of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 is to compensate painful motion with at least the minimum compensable rating, those regulations read together do not entitle a claimant to a compensable rating under DC 5230).

Regarding the index and long fingers, the Veteran already has the maximum available rating of 10 percent each for the index and long fingers under DC 5229. Accordingly, a higher rating remains unavailable for these digits.

Regarding the Veteran's thumb, a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted because during the appeal period, the Veteran did not have a gap of more than two inches (5.1 cm.) between the thumb pad and the fingers. The Veteran's symptoms at worst were after repeated use over time, at which time the Veteran's gap between the pad of the thumb and fingers was estimated as 2.0 cm. A gap of less than 2.5 cm. would typically warrant a noncompensable rating, but the Veteran currently has a 10 percent rating for painful motion under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59. The Veteran did not have a gap greater than 2.5 cm. Thus, a higher 20 percent rating is not warranted.

The Board also considers other diagnostic codes and finds that no other applicable diagnostic codes would permit higher disability ratings. Besides finger amputations, the fingers are rated under DC 5216 through 5230. Diagnostic Codes 5216 to 5219 cover unfavorable ankylosis of multiple digits. Diagnostic Codes 5220 through 5223 relate to favorable ankylosis of multiple digits. Diagnostic Codes 5224 to 5227 cover ankylosis (favorable or unfavorable) of individual digits. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. The Veteran does not have actual or functional ankylosis of the fingers, so a higher rating is not warranted under any of these diagnostic codes. See generally Chavis v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 1, 11 (2021) (holding that consideration must still be given to whether a claimant's functional loss "is consistent with that contemplated by ankylosis-in other words, if it is the functional equivalent of ankylosis").

The Veteran does not have multiple finger amputations, so DC 5126 to 5151 do not apply. The Veteran does not have any single finger amputations, so DC 5152 to 5156 do not apply. Additionally, the January 2026 VA examiner found that the Veteran's right hand/fingers were not so severely impaired that he would be equally well served by an amputation with prosthesis. Thus, none of the amputation provisions apply.

Similarly, to the extent the Veteran argues that he should be rated based on loss of use of the right hand, subsection (f) under multiple finger amputations provides that loss of use of the hand exists when "no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation stump with a suitable prosthetic appliance." As the January 2026 VA examiner found otherwise, a higher rating is not warranted based on loss of use of the right hand.

There is no basis in the record for an increase. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claims, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Entitlement to an increased rating for the Veteran's weakness in all fingers of the right hand is not warranted for any finger. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5228, 5229, 5230.

Controlling Law - TDIU

Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned where the schedular disability rating is less than total, when the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation because of service-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). "Substantially gainful employment" is that employment "which is ordinarily
itlement to an increased rating for the Veteran's weakness in all fingers of the right hand is not warranted for any finger. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5228, 5229, 5230.

Controlling Law - TDIU

Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned where the schedular disability rating is less than total, when the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation because of service-connected disabilities. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). "Substantially gainful employment" is that employment "which is ordinarily followed by the nondisabled to earn their livelihood with earnings common to the particular occupation in the community where the Veteran resides." Moore v. Derwinski, 1?Vet. App.?356, 358 (1991).

The phrase "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" contains both economic and noneconomic components. See Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019). The economic component refers to an occupation earning more than marginal income, outside of a protected work environment, as determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the poverty threshold for one person. Id. The noneconomic component requires a determination concerning a Veteran's ability to secure and follow non-marginal employment. Id.

In determining whether a Veteran can secure, follow, and maintain a substantially gainful occupation, the Board will consider the following factors: (1) the Veteran's occupational history, education, skill, and training; (2) whether the Veteran has the physical ability (both exertional and non-exertional) to perform the type of activities required by the occupation at issue; and (3) whether the Veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue. See id. The relevant issue is not whether the Veteran is unemployed or has difficulty obtaining employment, but whether the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment. Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). Advancing age, any impairment caused by conditions that are not service-connected, and prior unemployability status must be disregarded when determining whether a Veteran is currently unemployable. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.16(a), 4.19.

Whether TDIU is schedular or extraschedular, the Board may adjudicate TDIU in the first instance, granting TDIU anytime a Veteran's service connected disabilities prevent a Veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation. See Witkowski v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 459 (2025); see generally 38 C.F.R. § 4.16.

7. Entitlement to TDIU

The Board has found that TDIU was raised by the record as part and parcel of the Veteran's increased rating claim, so there are no explicit contentions by the Veteran and his attorney. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that TDIU is not warranted prior to March 1, 2023; is warranted from March 1, 2023 to July 21, 2025; and is moot from July 22, 2025.

Preliminarily, the Board notes that the economic component of TDIU is met throughout all portions of the appeal period because the Veteran last worked in 2016 or 2017. See August 2025 VA Examination Report. He remained unemployed throughout the appeal period. See, e.g., January 2022 VA Treatment Record; February 2022 VA Treatment Record. Thus, the Veteran earned less than the poverty threshold for one person, as he did not obtain any compensation from employment.

Additionally, regarding the noneconomic component, as relevant to all stages of the appeal period, the Veteran's educational history was a high school education without any college. See January 2025 VA Treatment Record; August 2025 VA Examination Report. The Veteran's occupational history included operating a forklift. See February 2022 VA Treatment Record. During service, the Veteran worked as a helicopter mechanic. After service, he also performed mechanical work on motorcycles and cars. He eventually owned a machine shop "later in life." See August 2025 VA Examination Report.

A. Entitlement to TDIU prior to March 1, 2023, is denied.

During the period prior to March 1, 2023, the Veteran was service connected for coronary artery disease status post myocardial infarction, right radial artery throm
education without any college. See January 2025 VA Treatment Record; August 2025 VA Examination Report. The Veteran's occupational history included operating a forklift. See February 2022 VA Treatment Record. During service, the Veteran worked as a helicopter mechanic. After service, he also performed mechanical work on motorcycles and cars. He eventually owned a machine shop "later in life." See August 2025 VA Examination Report.

A. Entitlement to TDIU prior to March 1, 2023, is denied.

During the period prior to March 1, 2023, the Veteran was service connected for coronary artery disease status post myocardial infarction, right radial artery thrombus (blood clots), and pursuant to the Board's grant of an earlier effective date, weakness of all right hand fingers. These disabilities alone did not prevent the Veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation during this period.

The Veteran's coronary artery disease status post myocardial infarction did not impact his ability to work prior to the appeal period. See December 2013 VA Examination Report. The Veteran's level of functional impairment as it relates to occupational tasks during the appeal period remained unchanged. According to a July 2022 VA examination report, the Veteran's coronary artery disease status post myocardial infarction did not impact his ability to perform any type of occupational task.

The Veteran's thrombus of the right radial artery impacted the Veteran's ability to perform any type of occupational task according to the July 2022 VA examiner. The examiner indicated that the Veteran should be assigned to employment where he is not required to use his dominant hand, such as a greeter at Walmart.

The Veteran's right hand finger disabilities caused inability to grasp, grip, and lift household items with the right hand. See January 2022 VA Treatment Record. Additionally, the Veteran was unable to write with his right hand or type. See January 2023 VA Treatment Record.

The Board finds that the physical effects of the Veteran's disabilities during this period were significant, but they did not completely prevent the Veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation, given the level of retained mental ability and the potential for reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Based on the Veteran's work history of owning his own business, the Veteran could certainly engage in the wide spectrum of sedentary or semi-sedentary jobs that require no specialized training or skill, despite his lack of college degree. Indeed, the July 2022 VA examiner identified the type of position for which the Veteran would be reasonably suited, which would not involve use of his right hand. Thus, the Veteran was not completely unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment during this period.

In making this determination, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran's July 2022 VA examination for a stroke (Central Nervous System And Neuromuscular Disease DBQ) found that the Veteran's cognition was not conducive to meaningful employment. However, the Board is unable to grant TDIU on this basis because the Veteran's brain, vessels, thrombosis (aka stroke) was not service connected until May 24, 2024. Thus, the level of impairment reflected by the examination is considered in the grant of TDIU below, but not prior.

As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 780-82 (2021). Entitlement to TDIU prior to March 1, 2023, is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.16, 4.19; Witkowski v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 459 (2025).

B. Entitlement to TDIU from March 1, 2023 to July 21, 2025, is granted.

During the period from March 1, 2023 to July 21, 2025, the Veteran had the same service connected disabilities as above, in addition to hypertension and tinnitus from March 1, 2023. He was also granted service connection for brain, vessels, thrombosis associated with hypertension (stroke), effective May 24, 2024. The Veteran was service connected for a right anterior forearm scar on the same date.

The physical impact of the Veteran's weakness of the fingers of the right hand was largely the same during this period. The Veteran experienced challenges in grasping, gripping, grabbing, holding objects, writing, and typing with the right hand. See November 2024 VA Examination Report
the period from March 1, 2023 to July 21, 2025, the Veteran had the same service connected disabilities as above, in addition to hypertension and tinnitus from March 1, 2023. He was also granted service connection for brain, vessels, thrombosis associated with hypertension (stroke), effective May 24, 2024. The Veteran was service connected for a right anterior forearm scar on the same date.

The Veteran's scar from fasciotomy caused inability to bear weight, weakness, and pain to the right hand/fingers. See October 2023 VA Examination Report for Skin Diseases; October 2023 VA Examination Report for Scars. Hypertension did not impact the Veteran's ability to work. See August 2023 VA Examination Report.

The Veteran's thrombosis (stroke) caused severe short and long term memory recognition. See November 2024 VA Examination Report. The Veteran experienced extreme confusion and severe impairment in word fluency. See April 2024 VA Treatment Records.

The Board resolves doubt in the Veteran's favor and finds that TDIU is warranted as of the date of the increase in severity for the Veteran's service connected coronary artery disease, rather than the date that service connection was awarded for the Veteran's stroke, although the latter strongly weighs in favor of a grant of TDIU, as the Veteran lacked the mental ability to engage in substantially gainful employment because of his stroke, even apart from other service connected disabilities.

Specifically, the August 2023 VA examination report for heart conditions considered the Veteran's acute, subacute, or old myocardial infarction and found that his condition impacted his ability to perform any type of occupational task. However, the examiner did not provide any description or examples. A later October 2023 VA examination report that also considered the myocardial infarction clarified that the Veteran's condition impacted his ability to work, described as "intermittent chest pain, shortness of breath, and chronic fatigue." Thus, the Veteran's coronary artery disease status post myocardial infarction would cause the Veteran physical and mental impairment because of impaired productivity due to fatigue, likely to affect his physical and mental speed in completing tasks, shortness of breath, and chest pain, which would limit his physical ability to work.

In sum, resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Veteran's service-connected disabilities caused him to be unable to perform substantially gainful employment from March 1, 2023 to July 21, 2025, even considering reasonable accommodations from the ADA.

C. Entitlement to TDIU from July 22, 2025, is dismissed as moot.

The appeal period for TDIU implied per Rice is the same as that for the underlying increased rating claim. See generally Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009). However, the Board concludes that the implicit claim for TDIU from July 22, 2025, is moot. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.202; see generally 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.16; Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242 (2011); Bradley v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (2008).

Preliminarily, the Board notes that the Veteran is in receipt of a combined 100 percent rating for his service connected disabilities from July 22, 2025. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has recognized that a 100 percent rating under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities indicates that a Veteran is totally disabled. Holland v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 443, 446 (1994) (citing Swan v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 20, 22 (1990)). Thus, if VA has found a Veteran to be totally disabled as a result of a particular service-connected disability or combination of disabilities pursuant to the rating schedule, there is no need, and no authority, to otherwise rate that Veteran totally disabled on any other basis. See Locklear v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 311, 314 n.2 (2011). Therefore, TDIU is moot. See
for Rating Disabilities indicates that a Veteran is totally disabled. Holland v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 443, 446 (1994) (citing Swan v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 20, 22 (1990)). Thus, if VA has found a Veteran to be totally disabled as a result of a particular service-connected disability or combination of disabilities pursuant to the rating schedule, there is no need, and no authority, to otherwise rate that Veteran totally disabled on any other basis. See Locklear v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 311, 314 n.2 (2011). Therefore, TDIU is moot. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a).

However, a grant of a 100 percent disability does not always render the issue of a TDIU moot. VA's duty to maximize a Veteran's benefits includes consideration of whether his disabilities establish entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114.

(Continued on the next page)

Here, the Veteran is not entitled to SMC(s) under 38 U.S.C. § 1114, but the grant of TDIU would not afford the Veteran this benefit. A grant of TDIU based upon impairment of a single finger, or even right hand weakness, generally, would entitle the Veteran to SMC(s) because his coronary artery disease is independently ratable at 60 percent from March 1, 2023. However, the Veteran's right hand disability alone was not severe enough to prevent the Veteran from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation. As mentioned above, the Veteran's right hand disability caused impaired ability to perform occupational tasks. The Veteran was unable to use his right hand to eat or hold items. See January 2026 VA Examination Report. His right hand weakness of all fingers did not cause any mental impairment. Given his educational and employment history, the Veteran nonetheless retained the physical and mental ability to perform substantially gainful employment when only considering his right hand weakness of all fingers, particularly in light of his experience as a business owner and the potential for reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

Thus, TDIU is not warranted based on right hand weakness of all fingers alone, so his 100 percent combined rating renders TDIU moot from July 22, 2025. Accordingly, the claim for entitlement to TDIU from July 22, 2025, is dismissed. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d); 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(a).

R. Bisignani

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board R. Garcia, Associate Counsel

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