Scars decisions — 2011

The Board has determined that a compensable initial rating of 10 percent is warranted for the Veteran's service-connected degenerative joint disease with residual scar, status post comminuted fracture of the right (dominant) third and fourth fingers.

The Board found no evidence of aggravation of bilateral pes planus during service and denied the Veteran's claim for service connection. The claims for increased evaluations for mechanical low back pain, bilateral hearing loss, and multiple scars were also denied.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence regarding his right eye condition, including an operative report from his April 2002 focal laser surgery and any surgical photographs or videos.

The Veteran's service-connected partial posterior medial meniscectomy of the right knee is currently manifested by pain and minimal limitation of motion, warranting a 10 percent disability rating. The surgical scars associated with his right knee are rated as painful but not disabling.

The Veteran's service-connected residuals of a laceration injury to the left palm and little finger with postoperative scars are rated at 20 percent, which is the maximum schedular rating available under VA's Rating Schedule.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including right bundle branch block, PTSD, bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, and noncompensably rated left fifth metacarpal finger fracture residuals and scar of the left palm, preclude gainful employment. The Board finds that a TDIU rating is granted.

The Board has denied the appellant's claim for an apportionment of her husband's VA compensation benefits, finding that he was reasonably discharging his responsibility for her during their separation and thus no basis exists for a 'general' apportionment. However, there is no hardship shown to warrant a 'special' apportionment.

The Veteran's claims for service connection and increased ratings were granted, with the effective dates varying based on when evidence of disability was first recognized. The TDIU claim also had an earlier effective date.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including arthritis of the right knee and left knee, instability of the right knee, a scar from his inguinal region, degenerative arthritis of the left knee, and degenerative arthritis of the right hip, do not render him unemployable.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a VA examination to assess the combined impact of his service-connected disabilities on his employability, and for consideration of any new evidence added since the last supplemental statement of the case.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected healed laceration scar on the right leg does not warrant a compensable evaluation prior to March 11, 2010 and an evaluation in excess of 10 percent from March 11, 2010 to the present.

The Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for the separate 10 percent disability ratings for right knee arthritis, posterior scar, and laxity have been denied. The effective dates assigned by the RO are April 21, 2001 for the arthritis rating, and April 9, 2005 for the laxity rating.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for scheduling a video-conference hearing. The remaining issues on appeal include reopening and service connection claims, as well as rating increases.

The Veteran's combined disability rating was not high enough to warrant a TDIU during the period on appeal. However, his service-connected disabilities did not render him unemployable due to their severity.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss and denied a compensable evaluation for the Veteran's burn scar of the right forearm. The Veteran currently has a diagnosis of sensorineural hearing loss, bilaterally, which is related to his in-service acoustic trauma. However, his current burn scar does not affect his arm function.

The Veteran's service-connected left knee and leg scars with numbness in the distribution of the peroneal nerve have been rated at 20 percent, which is the maximum schedular rating available. The Veteran's posttraumatic deformation of the left patella has also been rated at 10 percent.

The Board found that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not cause or contribute to his death, and thus denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for his right shoulder disability and associated scars was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a rating greater than 20 percent prior to October 16, 2007, and denied any higher ratings thereafter.

The Veteran argues that he should have received separate compensable evaluations for the residual scars from his service-connected conditions. The November 1970 rating decision did not assign such evaluations, but the Board finds no clear and unmistakable error in this determination.

The Veteran's claims for increased disability evaluations and service connection are being remanded due to the need for further development of evidence regarding his right toe disability. The other issues remain unresolved.