Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07017/USCOURTS-ca13-15-07017-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert A. McDonald
Appellee
Wade Thompson
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

WADE THOMPSON,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

ROBERT A. MCDONALD, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________ 

2015-7017

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 13-1633, Judge Lawrence B. 

Hagel.

______________________ 

Decided: March 8, 2016

______________________ 

JAMES R. BARNEY, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, 

Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for 

claimant-appellant. Also represented by CARA R.

LASSWELL, RONALD LEE SMITH. 

WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, Commercial Litigation 

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of 

Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. 

Also represented by BENJAMIN C. MIZER, ROBERT E.

KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., ERIC PETER 

BRUSKIN; DAVID J. BARRANS, MARTIE ADELMAN, Office of 

Case: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2016
2 THOMPSON v. MCDONALD

General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Washington, DC.

CHRISTY G. LEA, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, 

LLP, Irvine, CA, for amicus curiae Disabled American 

Veterans. Also represented by ZACHARY GLANTZ. 

______________________ 

Before NEWMAN, PLAGER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PLAGER, Circuit Judge. 

This is a veterans case. Wade G. Thompson appeals a 

judgment of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(“Veterans Court”). The Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying 

Thompson a disability rating in excess of 20% for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine prior to March 8, 

2011. The Veterans Court’s decision was based in part 

upon its interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 in light of 

§ 4.71a. 

Thompson’s appeal raises a question of first impression: Does § 4.40 provide a basis for a rating separate 

from § 4.71a? The answer is no; we affirm the judgment 

of the Veterans Court.

BACKGROUND

Regulatory Framework

The Schedule for Rating Disabilities, 38 C.F.R. part 4, 

is divided into two subparts: Subpart A “General Policy in 

Rating” and Subpart B “Disability Ratings.” Subpart B 

contains several headings, including “The Musculoskeletal System,” “The Digestive System,” and “The Respiratory System.” Under each such heading, there is at least 

one section specifying disability ratings relevant to that 

particular heading. 

Case: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2016
THOMPSON v. MCDONALD 3

Under the musculoskeletal system heading, at issue 

here, there are two sections that explicitly list ratings, 

38 C.F.R. §§ 4.71a (“Schedule of ratings—musculoskeletal 

system”) and 4.73 (“Schedule of ratings—muscle injuries”). In addition to these ratings sections, there are 

several sections that do not explicitly list ratings but 

discuss general principles concerning ratings for the 

musculoskeletal system or particular parts thereof. See, 

e.g., id. §§ 4.40 (“Functional loss”), 4.41 (“History of injury”), 4.42 (“Complete medical examination of injury 

cases”), 4.43 (“Osteomyelitis”), 4.45 (“The joints”), 4.46 

(“Accurate measurement”).

Section 4.40, entitled “Functional loss,” states: 

Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or infection in 

parts of the system, to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, 

strength, speed, coordination and endurance. It is 

essential that the examination on which ratings 

are based adequately portray the anatomical 

damage, and the functional loss, with respect to 

all these elements. The functional loss may be due 

to absence of part, or all, of the necessary bones, 

joints and muscles, or associated structures, or to 

deformity, adhesions, defective innervation, or 

other pathology, or it may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the 

visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the 

motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of 

motion, and a part which becomes painful on use 

must be regarded as seriously disabled. A little 

used part of the musculoskeletal system may be 

expected to show evidence of disuse, either 

through atrophy, the condition of the skin, absence of normal callosity or the like.

Id. § 4.40.

Case: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/08/2016
4 THOMPSON v. MCDONALD

One of the two specific ratings sections, § 4.71a, 

addresses the spine and dictates that a veteran is entitled 

to a 20% disability rating if there is forward flexion of the 

thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not 

greater than 60 degrees, or if the combined range of 

motion of the thoracolumbar spine is not greater than 120 

degrees. Id. § 4.71a. A veteran is entitled to a higher, 

40% rating if there is forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine of 30 degrees or less. Id. Section 4.71a also 

allows for a 20% or 40% disability rating—along with 

several other ratings—under several other circumstances 

not at issue here. Id. Under § 4.71a, all of these ratings 

result “[w]ith or without symptoms such as pain

(wh[e]ther or not it radiates), stiffness, or aching in the 

area of the spine affected by residuals of injury or disease.” Id.

Thompson’s Case

We detail the background of Thompson’s case only as 

necessary. A more complete background is set forth in the 

opinion of the Veterans Court. See Thompson v. McDonald, No. 13-1633, 2014 WL 4239747 (Vet. App. Aug. 28, 

2014). In brief, Thompson served in the United States 

Marine Corps from May 1992 to November 1993. He 

sustained a back injury while on active duty and was 

honorably discharged for medical reasons in 1993. 

On March 28, 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) received Thompson’s claim for disability 

benefits for low-back disability. As a result of a series of 

VA Regional Office (“RO”) decisions, Thompson was 

assigned a 20% rating for service connected degenerative 

disc disease of the lumbar spine, applicable for the period

from June 1, 2008 to March 8, 2011.

Thompson disagreed with the 20% rating, and appealed to the Board. The Board denied Thompson entitlement to a rating in excess of 20%. As a factual finding, 

the Board determined: “Prior to March 8, 2011, the VeterCase: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/08/2016
THOMPSON v. MCDONALD 5

an’s service connected degenerative disc disease of the 

lumbar spine did not cause forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine of 30 degrees or less . . . .” J.A. 23. The 

Board stated that “forward flexion of the thoracolumbar 

spine was not 30 degrees or less, even considering limitation caused by pain, fatigue, and other factors.” J.A. 33. 

The Board observed that, upon examination, Thompson 

had forward flexion of the lumbar spine from 0 to 65 

degrees, with pain throughout the range of motion, and

that, after repeated testing, forward flexion was only from 

0 to 50 degrees.

The Board reasoned that, under Mitchell v. Shinseki, 

25 Vet. App. 32 (2011), pain, by itself, does not constitute 

a functional loss entitling a veteran to a higher rating 

“under VA regulations that evaluate disability based upon 

range-of-motion loss in the musculoskeletal system.” J.A. 

33. The Board quoted the statement in Mitchell that 

“‘pain must affect some aspect of the normal working 

movements of the body such as excursion, strength, speed 

coordination, and endurance in order to constitute functional loss.’” J.A. 33–34 (quoting Mitchell, 25 Vet. App. at 

43). The Board concluded that Thompson’s pain failed to 

cause “sufficient functional impairment to limit the 

flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less, 

as is required for a higher rating under the General 

Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine.” 

J.A. 34. 

As a legal conclusion, the Board determined that: 

“The criteria for an initial disability rating in excess of 20 

percent for service connected degenerative disc disease of 

the lumbar spine prior to March 8, 2011 have not been 

met.” J.A. 23. In support of that conclusion, the Board 

cited 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 

4.2, 4.7, 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a; and Diagnostic Codes 

5003, 5010, 5235–5243. As the Board viewed it, the 

discussion of functional loss under § 4.40 did not superCase: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/08/2016
6 THOMPSON v. MCDONALD

sede the requirements for a higher rating specified in

§ 4.71a.

On appeal to the Veterans Court, Thompson argued 

that the Board erred in relying on loss of motion under 

§ 4.71a to determine his rating without additionally 

taking into account functional loss due to pain as discussed in § 4.40. After granting Thompson’s motion for 

reconsideration of its initial decision, the Veterans Court 

ultimately affirmed the Board’s decision. 

The court reasoned that, because the conceded additional functional loss due to pain did not limit Thompson’s 

forward flexion to 30 degrees or less, it did not warrant a 

higher rating. The court stated:

Mr. Thompson is correct in his assertion that 

“range of motion ratings under § 4.71a do ‘not 

subsume 38 C.F.R. § 4.40,’ and ‘38 C.F.R. § 4.14 

does not forbid consideration of a higher rating 

based on a greater limitation of motion due to 

pain on use including during flare-ups.’” Mot. for 

Reconsideration at 3 (quoting DeLuca [v. Brown, 8 

Vet. App. 202, 205–06 (1995)]). Nevertheless, despite Mr. Thompson’s assertions that the [Veterans Court’s] finding runs afoul of DeLuca because 

it “appears to state that the ratings in 38 C.F.R. 

§ 4.71a adequately consider functional loss due to 

pain,” Mot. for Reconsideration at 2, the [Veterans 

Court’s] finding here is simply that the Board did 

not err in finding that the conceded additional 

functional loss due to pain is not compensable 

above and beyond the disability rating already assigned. In other words, because the additional 

functional loss due to pain is not severe enough to 

limit Mr. Thompson’s forward flexion to 30 degrees or less, it does not warrant a 40% disability 

rating. It appears that Mr. Thompson would have 

the [Veterans Court] ignore the express language 

Case: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/08/2016
THOMPSON v. MCDONALD 7

he quotes from DeLuca: “consideration of a higher 

rating based on a greater limitation of motion due 

to pain.” DeLuca, 8 Vet. App[.] at 205–06 [sic]. 

Here, a higher rating based on greater limitation 

of motion due to pain is not warranted because 

the limitation of motion due to pain does not rise 

to the level necessary for a 40% disability rating.

J.A. 13.

The Veterans Court entered judgment based on its 

decision, and Thompson appealed to this court. We have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292.

DISCUSSION

Our review of Veterans Court decisions is limited by 

statute. See 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We possess “exclusive 

jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to the 

validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation 

thereof . . . and to interpret constitutional and statutory 

provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a 

decision.” Id. § 7292(c). We must decide all relevant 

questions of law and hold unlawful and set aside regulations or interpretations thereof—besides factual determinations—that were relied upon in the Veterans Court 

decision and are “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 

discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) 

contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or 

immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; or 

(D) without observance of procedure required by law.” Id.

§ 7292(d)(1). We may not review a challenge to a factual 

determination or law or regulation as applied to the facts, 

unless a constitutional issue is presented. Id.

§ 7292(d)(2). We review Veterans Court decisions regarding issues of law without deference. Cushman v. 

Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Case: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/08/2016
8 THOMPSON v. MCDONALD

“To interpret a regulation we must look at its plain 

language and consider the terms in accordance with their 

common meaning.” Lockheed Corp. v. Widnall, 113 F.3d 

1225, 1227 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citing Perrin v. United States, 

444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979) and Rio Hondo Mem’l Hosp. v. 

United States, 689 F.2d 1025, 1034 n.11 (Ct. Cl. 1982)). 

Section 4.40 speaks generally in terms of disability of 

the musculoskeletal system, and explains what may cause

a functional loss. The section defines disability of the 

musculoskeletal system as “primarily the inability, due to 

damage or infection in parts of the system, to perform the 

normal working movements of the body with normal 

excursion, strength, speed, coordination and endurance.” 

38 C.F.R. § 4.40.

Section 4.40 also mandates that “a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled.” Id. Yet, the section provides no explicit rating for 

such disability. Instead, the section explains that “functional loss . . . may be due to pain, supported by adequate 

pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior of the 

claimant undertaking the motion.” Id. It also explains 

that “[w]eakness is as important as limitation of motion.” 

Id.

In discussing disability of the musculoskeletal system, 

the section focuses on the “normal working movements of 

the body” in terms of several elements, including normal 

excursion. The section also mentions pain. It speaks to 

pain (in terms of use) as capable of rendering a part of the 

musculoskeletal system or body seriously disabled. 

However, despite its discussion of pain, disability, and 

functional loss, § 4.40 never explicitly lists any actual 

disability ratings.

We read the words of a regulation in their context and 

with a view to their place in the overall regulatory 

scheme. See Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 782 

F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that we apply the 

Case: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/08/2016
THOMPSON v. MCDONALD 9

same interpretive rules for analyzing regulations that are 

used for analyzing statutes); Davis v. Mich. Dep’t of 

Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989) (noting that the words 

of a statute are read in context and with respect to the 

overall statutory scheme). See also United Sav. Ass’n of 

Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 

371 (1988).1 Based upon our prior discussion of the 

regulatory framework, it is clear that § 4.40 must be 

viewed in light of the explicitly listed disability ratings for 

the musculoskeletal system in § 4.71a. 

Read together, the absence of any explicit ratings in 

§ 4.40 makes sense. In promulgating 38 C.F.R. part 4, the 

VA carefully located § 4.40 and similar guidance under 

the umbrella heading of the musculoskeletal system. The 

VA also clearly included separate sections explicitly 

listing relevant disability ratings. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.71a, 

4.73. Given this regulatory framework, it is clear that the 

guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding

the nature of a veteran’s disability, after which a rating is 

determined based on the § 4.71a criteria. 

This is confirmed by the language of § 4.40 itself. 

That section focuses upon disability in terms of the body’s 

“normal working movements.” This is understandable in 

light of the range of motion thresholds in the relevant 

portion (dealing with the spine) of § 4.71a. Indeed, the 

relevant portion of § 4.71a addresses the spine and pro-

 

1 As Justice Scalia observed in writing for the 

Court, statutory construction is a holistic endeavor; a 

“provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often 

clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme—

because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a 

context that makes its meaning clear . . . or because only 

one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive 

effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” Timbers, 484 U.S. at 371.

Case: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/08/2016
10 THOMPSON v. MCDONALD

vides for disability ratings “[w]ith or without” pain, but 

contains no mention of “functional loss” as such. Id.

§ 4.71a. Section 4.40, as discussed above, makes clear 

that disability may occur if a veteran cannot perform the 

normal working movements of the body with normal 

excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance. 

Section 4.40 also makes clear that functional loss may be 

due to pain and that pain may render a part seriously 

disabled. When evaluating a disability, § 4.40 provides a 

broad canvas. However, whatever the background, an 

applicant for disability benefits is rated based on the 

criteria set forth in § 4.71a.

So understood, the Veterans Court’s legal interpretation in this case was proper. Because there is no error of 

law in the Veterans Court’s judgment, and because we 

cannot review the court’s application of the law to the 

facts, we must affirm.2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of 

the Veterans Court. 

AFFIRMED

COSTS

No costs.

 

2 In view of our analysis and disposition of this 

case, we need not address other arguments presented by 

the parties.

Case: 15-7017 Document: 53-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/08/2016