The Board found no evidence of ankylosis and denied the veteran's claim for a higher disability rating as his wrist joint limitation is already at its maximum under Diagnostic Code 5215.
The deciding factor: There was no evidence of ankylosis, which would have allowed for a higher rating. The current range of motion findings were consistent with the existing 10% rating.
- Claimed conditions
- right wrist scaphoid (navicular) closed fracture, degenerative joint disease
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 10%
- Decision date
- July 12, 2006
- Citation
- 0620168
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,013 · 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 0620168.
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.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for his lumbar spine disability has been denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating, as there was no unfavorable ankylosis or incapacitating episodes of IVDS.
- Denied
The Board denied an increased rating for the Veteran's lumbar spine disability, finding that there was no evidence of unfavorable ankylosis and thus not warranting a higher rating.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for an extension of a temporary total evaluation based on the need for convalescence due to his service-connected left great toe hallux valgus and degenerative joint disease has been dismissed because this issue was already decided by the Board in January 2026.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to an error in providing notice of a pre-decisional hearing, and the Veteran is entitled to such a hearing before the AOJ.
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.