Back to BVA DecisionsDENIEDSpecial Benefit EARLIER EFFECTIVE DATE Docket No. 250910-582761
SCAR(S) UNSTABLE OR PAINFUL
JENNIFER WHITE · 2026 · Case ID: A26040763
Summary
The veteran, who served from June 1966 to September 1969, including service in Vietnam, appeals the denial of an initial compensable rating for prostatectomy scars and earlier effective dates for service connection for residuals of prostate cancer and prostatectomy scars. The Board denied the claim for an initial compensable rating for prostatectomy scars, noting that the Veteran's scars did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Codes 7801, 7802, or 7804, as they were not unstable, painful, did not involve soft tissue damage, and did not exceed the required area thresholds. The Board also denied the claim for an earlier effective date for prostate cancer residuals, finding that the Veteran's claim was filed on June 11, 2024, which was the earliest possible effective date, and no evidence indicated an earlier claim submission. Similarly, the claim for an earlier effective date for prostatectomy scars was denied, as the July 3, 2024, date of the prostatectomy was the earliest possible effective date for that claim, and the Board found no basis for an earlier date. The Board found that VA satisfied its duty to assist by requesting and reviewing available records, and that the Veteran's claims did not meet the necessary legal criteria for the requested benefits.
Rationale
Scars did not exceed 929 sq cm for DC 7802; No soft tissue damage for DC 7801; Scars not unstable or painful for DC 7804; No disabling effects for DC 7805
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26040763 Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26 DOCKET NO. 250910-582761 DATE: April 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for prostatectomy scars is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to June 1, 2024, for the establishment of service connection for residuals of prostate cancer is denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 3, 2024, for the establishment of service connection for prostatectomy scars is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record weighs persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's prostatectomy scars resulted in underlying soft tissue damage, covered an area of 929 square centimeters or greater, were unstable or painful, or resulted in a disabling effect. 2. On June 11, 2024, VA received the Veteran's service connection claim for prostate cancer; a December 2024 rating decision established service connection for residuals of prostate cancer and assigned an effective date of June 11, 2024, the date the Veteran's service connection claim was received by VA. 3. On July 3, 2024, the Veteran underwent a prostatectomy, which resulted in three abdominal wall scars. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria are not met to establish an initial compensable rating for prostatectomy scars. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802. 2. The criteria are not met to establish entitlement to an effective date earlier than June 1, 2024, for the establishment of service connection for residuals of prostate cancer. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. 3. The criteria are not met to establish entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 3, 2024, for the establishment of service connection for prostatectomy scars. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had confirmed service from June 1966 to September 1969, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2024 and July 2025 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO); by law, the modernized review system, governed by the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In a September 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On December 23, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request. Regarding the earlier effective date claim for the establishment of service connection for residuals of prostate cancer, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) rating decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). Regarding the increased rating claim for prostatectomy scars and earlier effective date claim for the establishment of service connection for prostatectomy scars, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2025 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the rating decisions on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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. The Board notes that the AOJ requested the Veteran submit any request, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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. The Board notes that the AOJ requested the Veteran submit any relevant private treatment records or submit information with which VA can assist the Veteran in obtaining private treatment records. Required notice and information were provided in the claim form which the Veteran signed, certifying to the fact that such notice was received and further that they have included or identified relevant evidence. VA requested records for which the Veteran submitted a proper release and/or adequately identified. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a Veteran desires help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Thus, the Board finds that VA has satisfied the duty to assist. No further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA's duty to assist in development. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). The standard set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(iii) only permits constructive receipt of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) records that not only existed prior to the issuance of the AOJ decision on appeal, but also for which the claimant furnished sufficient information to make the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) aware of the existence of those records. Thus, the Board's consideration of VHA records is limited to the same. Here, the Board finds that VA treatment records were obtained and reviewed consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(iii) and the AMA framework. Increased Rating Legal Criteria 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. Examination reports are to be interpreted in light of the whole recorded history, and each disability must be considered from the point of view of the appellant working or seeking work. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Where there is a question as to which of two disability evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation is to be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating is to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Reasonable doubt regarding degree of disability is to be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for prostatectomy scars is denied. The Veteran's prostatectomy scars are rated under Diagnostic Code 7802. Under Diagnostic Code 7802, a 10 percent rating is assigned for scars other than the head, face, or neck that are superficial with an area exceeding 144 square inches (929 square centimeters). Under Diagnostic Code 7801, scars other than the head, face, or neck that are associated with underlying soft tissue damage with: an area exceeding 6 square inches (39 square centimeters) are assigned a rating a rating of 10 percent; an area exceeding 12 square inches (77 square centimeters) are assigned a rating of 20 percent; an area exceeding 72 square inches (465 square centimeters) are assigned a rating of 30 percent; an area exceeding 144 square inches (929 square centimeters) are assigned a rating of 40 percent. Under Diagnostic Code 7804, a 10 percent rating is assigned for one or two scars that are unstable or painful, a 20 percent rating is assigned for three or four scars that are unstable or painful, and a 30 percent rating is assigned for five or more scars that are unstable or painful. Under Diagnostic Code 7805, any disabling effects not considered in a rating a rating of 10 percent; an area exceeding 12 square inches (77 square centimeters) are assigned a rating of 20 percent; an area exceeding 72 square inches (465 square centimeters) are assigned a rating of 30 percent; an area exceeding 144 square inches (929 square centimeters) are assigned a rating of 40 percent. Under Diagnostic Code 7804, a 10 percent rating is assigned for one or two scars that are unstable or painful, a 20 percent rating is assigned for three or four scars that are unstable or painful, and a 30 percent rating is assigned for five or more scars that are unstable or painful. Under Diagnostic Code 7805, any disabling effects not considered in a rating provided under Diagnostic Codes 7800-04 are evaluated under an appropriate Diagnostic Code. Factual Background The July 2025 rating decision granted service connection for prostatectomy scars, assigning a noncompensable rating effective July 3, 2024, the date the Veteran underwent a prostatectomy. In September 2025, the Veteran asserted that he was entitled to a compensable rating for his prostatectomy scars, although he made no specific assertions. The Veteran's medical records show that he underwent a prostatectomy on July 3, 2024. However, his medical records do not contain any complaints or symptoms related to the prostatectomy scars. In July 2025, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The examiner noted that the Veteran had three abdominal wall scars from a prostatectomy that measured 5 centimeters long and 1 centimeter wide, 2 centimeters long and 1 centimeter wide, and 1.5 centimeters long and 0.5 centimeters wide. The examiner reported that the approximate total area of all the scars was 7.75 square centimeters. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's prostatectomy scars were not painful, were not unstable, did not have underlying soft tissue damage, and did not result in any functional impact. Analysis As described, the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's prostatectomy scars had an area exceeding 929 square centimeters, and as such, a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7802 is not warranted. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's prostatectomy scars resulted in soft tissue damage, and as such, a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7801 is not warranted. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's prostatectomy scars were unstable or painful, and as such, a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7804 is not warranted. Finally, the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's prostatectomy scars resulted in any disabling effects, and as such, a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7805 is not warranted. Accordingly, the criteria for an initial compensable rating for prostatectomy scars have not been met, and the claim is denied. Effective Dates Legal Criteria Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of service connection for an original claim for service connection is based on facts found but may not be earlier than the date of receipt of application. With limited exceptions (none here applicable), the effective date of service connection is the date the claim was received, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.400. Entitlement to an effective date prior to June 1, 2024, for the establishment of service connection for residuals of prostate cancer is denied. Factual Background and Analysis On June 11, 2024, the Veteran submitted a service connection claim for prostate cancer. A December 2024 rating decision granted service connection and assigned an effective date of June 11, 2204, the date the Veteran's service connection claim was received by VA. In September 2025, he asserted that he was entitled to an earlier effective date, although he made no specific assertions. The critical question in this matter is when the Veteran submitted his service connection claim for prostate cancer. It is not until June 11, 2024, that the Veteran submitted a service connection claim for prostate cancer. The claims file does not contain evidence that the Veteran filed a formal or informal service connection claim for prostate cancer prior to June 11, 2024. While the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer in May 2024, he did not file a service connection claim for prostate cancer until June 11, 2024. The Board is bound by governing law and regulations and has no authority to award benefits not authorized by governing law. Because the Veteran is not shown to have filed a formal service connection claim for prostate cancer prior to June 11, 2024, the law prevents VA from granting an effective for prostate cancer. It is not until June 11, 2024, that the Veteran submitted a service connection claim for prostate cancer. The claims file does not contain evidence that the Veteran filed a formal or informal service connection claim for prostate cancer prior to June 11, 2024. While the Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer in May 2024, he did not file a service connection claim for prostate cancer until June 11, 2024. The Board is bound by governing law and regulations and has no authority to award benefits not authorized by governing law. Because the Veteran is not shown to have filed a formal service connection claim for prostate cancer prior to June 11, 2024, the law prevents VA from granting an effective date prior to June 11, 2024, for the establishment of service connection for residuals of prostate cancer. As the earliest possible effective date under governing law given the undisputed facts in this case is already assigned, the law is dispositive in this matter. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). Accordingly, the criteria are not met to establish an effective date prior to June 11, 2024, for the establishment of service connection for residuals of prostate cancer, and the claim must be denied. Entitlement to an effective date prior to July 3, 2024, for the establishment of service connection for prostatectomy scars is denied. Factual Background and Analysis The July 2025 rating decision granted service connection for prostatectomy scars and assigned an effective date of July 3, 2024, the date the Veteran underwent a prostatectomy. Considering these facts, July 3, 2024, is the earliest possible effective date for which service connection may be awarded for the Veteran's prostatectomy scars. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i). As the earliest possible effective date under governing law given the undisputed facts in this case is already assigned, the law is dispositive in this matter. See Sabonis, 6 Vet. App. 426. Accordingly, the criteria are not met to establish an effective date prior to July 3, 2024, for the establishment of service connection for prostatectomy scars, and the claim must be denied. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Berryman, 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.