Professional Documents
Culture Documents
txt
Citation Nr: 1639929
Decision Date: 09/30/16
DOCKET NO.
)
)
2.
3.
4.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL
The Veteran
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
C. J. Houbeck, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from March 20
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal f
In February 2010, the Veteran testified at a hearing held before the unders
The Board's August 2011 decision was then vacated in its entirety in April
The Veteran appealed the May 2014 decision to the Court of Appeals for Vete
Following the Board remand, a subsequent March 2016 rating decision combine
A claim for increased rating includes a claim for a finding of total disabi
The Veteran's file has been scanned, and converted from a hybrid paper and
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
From June 29, 2009, to August 20, 2015, the Veteran's left foot plantar
2.
From June 29, 2009, to August 20, 2015, the Veteran's right foot planta
3.
From August 20, 2015, the Veteran's bilateral plantar fasciitis is mani
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
For the period from June 29, 2009, to August 20, 2015, the criteria for
2.
For the period from June 29, 2009, to August 20, 2015, the criteria for
3.
For the period from August 20, 2015, the criteria for the assignment of
VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provision
This appeal arises from the Veteran's disagreement with the initial ratings
VA also has a duty to assist the Veteran in the development of the claim, w
The Board concludes VA's duty to assist has been satisfied.
The Veteran's
As noted above, the Veteran also was afforded a hearing before the undersig
With respect to claims for increased ratings, the duty to assist includes,
The RO provided the Veteran with multiple examinations for his service-conn
Where the issue involves the assignment of an initial rating for a disabili
In this instance, for the period on appeal from June 29, 2009, to August 20
DC 5276 provides ratings for acquired flatfoot.
DC 5284, for "foot injuries, other" provides for a 30 percent rating for se
Medical evidence demonstrates that the Veteran has additional foot disabili
On June 29, 2009, the Veteran appeared for a VA foot examination.
At that
Less than one month later, the Veteran sought treatment at the VA for conti
In August 2012, the Veteran was diagnosed with decreased arch height
with
On August 20, 2015, the Veteran underwent a VA examination for his bilatera
From June 29, 2009, to August 20, 2015
The Board concludes that the objective medical evidence and the Veteran's s
Although the Veteran clearly has pain on manipulation of his feet, the evid
38 C.F.
For the period from August 20, 2015, the Veteran is in receipt of a 50 perc
The Board has considered the other foot DCs in 38 C.F.R. 4.71a, to inclu
As from August 20, 2015, the Veteran is receiving the maximum rating contem
The Board concludes that further staged ratings are not for application, ba
As shown above, and as required by Schafrath, 1 Vet. App. at 594, the Board
Additional Considerations
The Board also has considered whether the Veteran is entitled to a greater
Under Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet App 111 (2008), there is a three-step inquiry f
With respect to the first prong of Thun, the evidence in this case does not
ORDER
Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 20 percent from June 29, 2009
Entitlement to an initial rating greater than 20 percent from June 29, 2009
The Veteran also contends that his current 10 percent disability rating for
This issue was remanded by the Board in June 2015, pursuant to the above-re
Subsequent to the Board remand and VA examination report, however, the Cour
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:
1.
If a co
The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on t
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment.
______________________________________________
BETHANY L. BUCK
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals