The Board denied the veteran's request for an increased rating for his bilateral metatarsalgia with pes cavus, as it did not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation under applicable diagnostic codes.
The deciding factor: The evidence showed that the veteran had pain and tenderness in his feet but no severe impairment such as marked contraction of plantar fasciae or all toes hammertoes, which would warrant a higher rating.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral metatarsalgia, pes cavus, hammertoes
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 30%
- Decision date
- August 17, 2001
- Citation
- 0121102
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0121102.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeals for various conditions and ratings have been dismissed due to the Veteran's withdrawal of his appeal prior to a decision being made.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the Veteran's initial claims for service connection were not properly considered and remanded to obtain a full copy of her service treatment records. The Veteran was also scheduled for an examination to determine if she had any current bilateral foot disorders, including pes planus, pes cavus, plantar fasciitis, heel spurs, or pain.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand two issues: service connection for common headaches (claimed as migraines) secondary to vitiligo and service connection for pes cavus. The Veteran's claims are being returned due to inadequate medical opinions in the original decision.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to an inadequate VA examination, requiring a new one with a proper evaluation of the Veteran's foot disabilities.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.