The Board denied increased ratings for the Veteran's knee conditions, except for a 10% rating for left and right knee instability effective from October 1, 2008.
The deciding factor: The evidence did not show that the Veteran's knee disabilities warranted ratings in excess of 10 percent, as they did not meet the criteria for higher ratings based on flexion or extension limitations.
- Claimed conditions
- patellofemoral syndrome of the right knee, patellofemoral syndrome of the left knee, chondromalacia of the patella of the right knee involving locking of the knee joint, chondromalacia of the patella of the left knee involving locking of the knee joint
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 24, 2025
- Citation
- A25092301
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,316 · Granted: 43% (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 A25092301.
What this means for you
A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Granted
The Veteran is granted an effective date of August 12, 2011 for his entitlement to Total Disability Rating Based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU) and Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA). The decision is based on the Veteran's service-connected disabilities preventing him from securing or following substantially gainful employment since August 12, 2011.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the AOJ's decision to disenroll the Veteran from the PCAFC program was not supported by adequate and sufficient evidence, and thus remanded for further development and consideration.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not result in the need of personal care services, and his PCAFC request was denied. The Board finds that the AOJ did not provide proper notice and reasoning for the denial, and thus remands the case to obtain a new determination based on updated regulations.
- Granted
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including left knee disability and GERD, made him unable to follow a substantially gainful occupation. The Board granted TDIU based on these conditions.
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.