UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR VE TER AN S CL AI M S

N O . 99-270
C HARL I E S A N D ERS , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided Ma

y 9, 2000 )

Ro na ld L . S

mi th , o f Wa sh ing ton , D .C. , w a s o n th e br ie f f or the a pp e lla nt.
Lei g h A. Bradley , G e ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , A ssi sta nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Joan E. Mo ria rty , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Pa tri c ia T ru jil lo , of Washington, D.C., we re on the brief for the a ppellee.
Be fore KRAMER, HOL DAWAY, and IVERS, Judges

. HOL DAWAY, Judge : T he appellant, Charlie Sanders, appea ls an Octobe r 1998 dec ision of the B oard of

Veter ans' Appea ls (B VA or Boar d) which de termined (1) that the appe llant was not entitled to a disability rating in e x cess of 10% for his f oot disa bility ; (2) that the r ating criter ia under 3 8 C

. F. R

. § 4

. 7 3 , Di agn o s t i c C o d e ( DC ) 5 3 1 0 , m u s cl e i n j uri es , Gr o u

p X, u s ed t o ra t e t h e ap p el l an t 's foot injury

wer e not appr opriate a

nd chang ed the standa

rd t o 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5280-81, se vere unilatera l hallux rig idus; and (3) that sec ondary service connec tion for a lef t knee disorde r wa s not

wa rr ante d. B oth

part ies have fi le d b ri e fs . T he Court ha s juri sd ic tio n o f t

he c a se un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 7252(a) . For

the following rea sons, the Court w ill af firm the Boa

rd' s decision in part, vac ate the Boa rd' s decision in part, a

nd rema nd a matter

for r eadjudication.2 I. F AC TS The a ppellant serve d on active duty in the U.S. Army

from May

1967 to May

1970. During combat action, he sustained a throug h-and- throug h g unshot w ound to his left foot. I n J une 1970, a VA re g ional office (VARO) g rante d the appe llant service connec tion and a 10% disability ratingfor the injury to his left f

oot unde r 38 C.F.R. § 4.73, Diag nostic Code (DC) 5310. The VARO re ported that the throug h-and- throug h injury was in the are a of the first metatar sal and that the appellant ha d

re p o rt edt o s i ckca l l s ev er al t i m es re p o rt i n g p ai ni nh i s l ef t fo o t

. X- ra y ex am i n at i o n o f t h e ap p el l an t 's left foot in May

1969 was unre marka

ble. A November 1983 medical examination of the appellant' s left foot reve aled th at h e h ad residual sc ars of

the wound with some we akness of the g reat toe on resisting dorsiflexion and plantar flexion. There wa s no evidenc e of a ppare nt tissue loss. I n Dec ember 1986, the appe llant dropped a fili ng cabine t on his left foot. Medica l examination indi cate d that he had supe rficia l abra sions over his left shin and left g reat toe. I n O c tob e r 1 99 3, the a

pp e lla nt w a s d ia g no se d w ith c e llu lit is of the le ft fo ot a nd te nd e r j oints of the lef t foot with some flexi on defor mity

. A s ubsequent evaluation of hi s left foot revea led that he had pa inful rang e of motion in his left first toe. He was diag nosed with " hallux limit us/rigidus." The appellant filed an a

pplication in May

1994 for a

n incre ased disability

ratingfor his left foot. An April 1994 VA e x ami n at ion noted that the appe llant continued to have pa inful rang e of motion in hi s toe and diag nosed him with hallux limit us. The VARO de ni ed h i s cl ai m for a n inc re a se d d isa

bil ity ra tin g fo r his fo ot dis a

bil ity be c a

us e the me dic a l e vid e nc e did no t de mon str a te residual sever e muscle disability

. A November 1994 VA consultation repor t f or phy sic al t h er apy indicated that the appellant had been diag nosed with tr aumatic arthritis of the left hallux wit h painful rang e of motion, ede ma, and a mild limp. The appellant c ontinued in phy sical thera py . A Fe bruar

y 1995 prog ress note indicated that he had le ft hallux rig idus and infec tion in the left first metatar sal ph a lang e a l jo int

. A Novembe r 1995 VARO r ating decision indicate d t h at the veter an wa s not entitled to an incre ased r ating beca

use there was no e vidence of seve re muscle disability . The a ppellant filed a timely Notice of

Disag ree ment with the VARO' s decision. S u bsequent VAmedical r ecor ds confirme d that the appe llant had anky losis and d ege n erative joint dis ease of the lef t3

me tatars op ha lang e a l jo int . Se ve ra l do c tor s r e c omm e nd e d th a t th e a pp e lla nt u nd e rg o s urger

y to

corr ect the pa in. I n J une 1996, the VARO confirme d its decision to deny the appe llant an incre ased disability rating

. I n Aug ust 1997, the BVArema nded the matter to the VARO for rea djudication beca

use there ha d b e e n c ha

ng e s in the VAratin g sc he du le re g ard ing the c ri te ri a for e va luatin g mus c le inj ur ie s. The B VA orde red the VA R O to obtain a medica l opinion describing the muscles injured by the appellant' s in-service foot injury and the e x tent of the re sidual disability . I n October 1997, the appellant unde rwe nt a VA orthopedic evaluation. The appellant was diagnose d with "ha llux rig idus and gun shot wound throug h and throug h [first] metatar sal." In a Marc h 1998 VA examination, the phy sician noted that ther e we re no muscle injuries and that the injury "w as strictly

skin and bone." He a lso noted that both the flexor and extensor tendons wer e not se vere d. The phy sician diag nosed the a pp e lla nt w itha " thr ou g h a

nd thr ou g h gun sh ot wou nd of the fi rs t me tatars a l w ith out mu sc le damag e, without defor

mity " a nd "oste oarthritis of the f

irst metatarsa l phalang eal joint (open ha llux rig idus)." On appe al to the B oard, the BV A determined that DC 5310 for muscle injuries was not the appropr iate DC, and chang ed the evaluation criter ia t o 38 C.F.R. § 4.71(a) , DCs 5280-81. The B oard fo un d that the mos t re c e nt VA me dic a l e xami natio n de mon str a te d that the re ha d been no mus c le injury to the appellant's foot to evaluate t he inj ury under D C 5310. The B oard a lso found that the appellant wa s not entitled to a disability ratingg reater than 10% under D C 5280-81.

II. AN AL YSI S A. L eft Kne e I n his brief, the ap p el l an t challeng es only the B oard' s decision with respe ct to the left foot disability . There fore , the appe llant is deemed to have abandone d the issue of sec ondar y service

connec tion for a kne e disability that was included in the Boa rd’s de cision. Se e Bu c k

lin ge r v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 435 ( 1993). B. L eft F oot Under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d), "E ach decision of t he Board shall include a written statement of the B oa rd ' s f ind ing s and

c on c lus ion s, and

the re a so ns or

ba se s f or tho se fi nd ing s a

nd c on c lus ion s,4

on a ll m a te ri a l is su e s o f f

a c t and law p re se nte d o n th e re c or d. " As thi s Co urt has p re vio us ly explained: I f t he a dmi nis tr a tiv e a c tio n is to be te ste d by the ba sis up on wh ic h it purp or ts t o r e st, that basis must be set forth with such clarity as to be unde rstandable . I t will not do for a court to be c ompelled to g uess at the theory underly ing the ag ency ' s action; nor can a court be expected to chisel th at wh i ch must be prec ise from what the ag ency has left va g ue and inde cisive. Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. 4 9 , 5 6 -5 7 (1 9 9 0 ) ( qu o t i n g SE C v . Ch e ne ry , 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 (1947))

. I n this case, the Court is unce rtain as to the pr ecise theory underly ing the Bo ard' s action. What the Boa

rd di d i s cl ea r: i t chang ed the diagnostic code which it used to rate the appellant’ s service -conne cted injury . Previously , the appellant had bee n rate d under 38 C.F .R. § 4.73, DC 5310 wh ic h p ro vid e s d isa

bil it y ratin g s f or mus c le s o f t

he fo ot. Th e B oa

rd c ha ng e d th e sta

nd ard to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DCs 5280-5 281, which provide s disability rating s for bone or joint disabilit ies

o f t h e f o o t

. T h e B o ar d

fo u n d t h at DC s 5 2 8 0 -5 2 8 1 we re th e m o re ap p ro p ri at e d i s ab i l i ty ra t i n gs beca use " [t ]hroughout the history of the veter an' s treatment f or complaints re lated to re siduals of the g unshot wound of t he foot, the related di sabilities have been assessed as being related to the bone and joint involved, not the muscles of the ve tera n' s foot or toe." The Boar d further noted t hat " the VA examination report of Marc h 1997 made clear that the veteran' s condition did not involve injury to either muscles, te ndons[,] or lig aments." I n his brief, the a

ppellant ar g ues that t he Board' s action wa s unlawful bec ause it violated the

re str ic tio ns on

dis a bil ity ratin gs set for th b y

38 U. S.C. § 1 10 . T his se c tio n p ro hib its re du c tio n in

ratin g fo r a

ny " dis a bil ity wh ic h ha s bee n co nti nu ou sly ra te d .

. . fo r t

we nty or mor e y e ars ." 38 U. S.C. § 1 10 . Si nc e the ratin g fo r h is f oo t mu sc le dis a

bil ity ha d c on tin

ue d un c ha

ng e d fo r m or e tha

n tw e nty y ear s, the appe llant argues that the B oard discontinued this rating c ontrary to the provisions of 38 U. S.C. § 1 10 . T he a

pp e lla nt a sse rt s, the re fo re , th a t he is e nti tle d t o comp e ns a tio n und e r b oth DCs 5280-5281 and DC 5310. Howeve r, the Court's r eview of the B oard' s decision is frustrated by the inadequa

te re asons for its dec ision. As to whether the B oard discontinued a

protec ted rating c ontrary

to 38 U.S.C. § 110 or 38 U.S .C. § 1159 while s imultaneously g ranting service connec tion for a differ ent injury , in which5

e ve nt t he a pp e lla nt may be e nti tle d to be rate d und e r bot h DCs 528 0- 52 81 and DC 53 10 a s h e argue s, the B oa rd sh ou ld inc lud e a dis c us sio n of the iss ue of se ve ra nc e and why the c ha ng e in t he dis a bil ity ratingcode is not, at a

minimum , analog ous to severa nce. Se e als o E

ste ba n v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 259, 261-62 (1994) (vetera n entitled to separ ate rating s wher e none of the sy mptomatology

for a ny one condition duplicates, or overla ps others). A second possi ble s cena rio is that the B oard ma

y have

mere ly modified the appe llant's disability ratingpursuant to the Court' s decision in Gi ffo rd v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 269 (1994), to conf orm to the evidenc e that shows a disa bility to the left g reat toe but no disability to the muscles of the le ft foot. In Gi ffo rd , the B oa

rd mod if ie d the a pp e llan t's d is abil ity ratingfrom a le ft thigh disability to a rig ht thigh dis ability . The a ppellant in Gi

ffo rd , simil ar to the appellant he re, a

rgued that he w as entitled t o disability rating s for both thighs. The Court held that the " on ly e sse nti a l f

e a tur e of the ini tia l r a tin g , a

nd the pa rt of the ra tin g th at was pro tecte d, wa s a dis a bil ity ste mmi ngfr om a g unshot wound to a th igh. " Id. at 271. A third possible scena rio is that the B oa rd did no t w ant t o a

wa rd the a pp e lla nt d up lic ate dis a

bil ity ratin g s f

or the same sy mptomatology

. See 38 C. F.R. § 4 .1 4; se e als o G iff or d , 6 Vet.App. at 272 (" Unlike seve ranc e, limit ing a ppellant her e to a sing le 10% disability wher e he is ser

vice connecte d for both thighs is not prec luded by our statutes, and is supported by case law and r egulation.") (Kra mer, J., concurring ). As the Court descr ibed in Gi lbe rt , when the r easons f or the B oard' s decision ar e uncle ar, the Court will not g uess at the theor y underly ing the Boa

rd' s action. Thus, the a

ppropriate reme dy

is for the Court to rema

nd the matter to the Boa

rd to c larify

its decision. I n this reg ard, the Court notes that the criti cal issue f

or the B oard to a ddress, with re g ard to the a bove sce narios, is whethe r the appellant' s disability

is sy stemic, i.e., muscular or skeletal, or rathe r only functional, a

nd if so, what is the prec ise nature o f t h e fu n ct i o nal loss common to any ratingcode that may

be utiliz ed. As alway s, the appe llant will be f ree on rema

nd to the Boa

rd to submit additional evidence or argument in support of hi s position, including his interpre tation of t he relevanc e of Gifford or 38 C.F.R. § 4.14, if he so choose s. Se e Kut sc he ro us k yv . W est , 12 Vet.App. 369 ( 1999).

III . C ON CL USI ON The Court finds that the B oard’ s decision on the issue of an incre ased disability rating for the appellant' s left foot condition is inadequate for a ppellate r eview. T here fore , the B oard' s decision as6

t o t h at m at t er

i s VA C A T E D an d

t h e m at t er

i s R E M AN DE D f

o r r ea d j u d i ca t i o n
. T h e B o ar d 's decision re g ardingservice connec tion of his left knee c laim is AFF I RMED.