The Board has granted increased ratings for the left knee and right arm scars, effective May 14, 2003. The veteran's other claims remain denied.
The deciding factor: The evidence did not establish that the service-connected conditions required frequent hospitalization or marked interference with employment beyond what is contemplated in the schedular standards.
- Claimed conditions
- left index finger amputation, shrapnel wound to the left thigh
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 20%
- Decision date
- February 26, 2004
- Citation
- 0405412
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,377 · Granted: 17% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
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 0405412.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Granted
The Veteran's service-connected psychiatric condition required his wife to assist him in managing medication and ensuring he did not leave the stove on, as well as helping with daily activities like cooking and money management. The Board found that this necessitated regular aid and attendance due to his cognitive impairment.
- Denied
The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for amputations of the left index, middle, and pinky fingers due to a March 2010 VA medical care, finding no evidence of negligence or fault on VA's part.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and VA treatment records.
- Denied
The Board found that the Veteran did not incur an additional disability, including recurrent staph infections, due to a 1982 VA surgery. The opinion from the independent medical expert (IME) concluded it was less likely than not that the Veteran incurred these conditions as a result of the surgery.
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.