Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/28/fedcir-meaning-of-conjunctive-and-boyle-v-nicholson-non-precedential/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:31:54+00:00

Document:
TAGS: Watson v. Dep’t of the Navy, 262 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The use of the conjunctive “and” means that there are three “elements” to the forty percent rating that Mr. Boyle had to meet. See Watson v. Dep’t of the Navy, 262 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
John T. Boyle, of Hernando Beach, Florida, pro se.
Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
Judge Bruce E. Kasold.NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and SCHALL, Circuit Judges.
decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying his request (1) for revisionn of a May 1980 final rating decision based on clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”); (2) for revision of a November 1996 final rating decision based on CUE; and (3) for an.earlier effective date for his one hundred percent disability rating for diabetes mellitus. Boyle v. Nicholson, No. 05-0990 (Vet. App. Sept. 20, 2006). We affirm.
diabetes service-connected and assigned a twenty percent rating, effective from April 11, 1980 (the day after separation). See 38 C.F.R. § 4.119, Diagnostic Code 7913 (1979). Mr. Boyle did not appeal the May 1980 rating decision. In September 1994, Mr. Boyle filed a claim for an increased rating for his service-connected diabetes mellitus.
In November 1996, the VA increased the diabetes rating to sixty percent and granted service connection for other medical problems associated with the diabetes, resulting in a combined rating of seventy percent. Mr. Boyle did not appeal the November 1996 rating decision.
high insulin usage, also factors to be considered for a 40% rating.” Id.
Code 7913, 100 rating (1996).
the result of a hypoglycemic reaction, as required for the 100% disability rating.” Id.
court. We have jurisdiction over his appeal pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).
Our jurisdiction to review Veterans Court decisions is limited by statute.
see Forshey v. Prinicipi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc).
date for the one hundred percent disability rating.
disability rating, and in November of 1996, it increased the rating to sixty percent. Mr.
(1998).1 We address these contentions in turn.
his particular case, we recognize within his arguments possible purely legal challenges.
1 Because the requirements for the one hundred percent rating and the sixty percent rating were the same in both 1996 and 1998, for convenience, we refer to the 1998 version of the regulation.
“and” means that there are three “elements” to the forty percent rating that Mr. Boyle had to meet. See Watson v. Dep’t of the Navy, 262 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
To the extent that the Board found that Mr. Boyle’s insulin dosage did not meet the requirement for a rating higher than twenty percent, we are presented with a factual question that is beyond the scope of our review. See In re Boyle, No. C29593793, slip op. at 9 (Apr. 6, 2005).
date are concerned, Mr. Boyle’s principal argument is that the Veterans Court erred because it misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 4.119, Diagnostic Code 7913, 100 rating (1998), when it required that his “weekly visits to the doctors must be the result of hypoglycemia.” According to Mr. Boyle, the regulation is properly read to mean that hospitalizations are required to be the result of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, but that regular diabetic care visits are not. The Board found (and the Veterans Court affirmed the finding as supported by the evidence of record) that there is no evidence of record showing weekly visits for diabetic care prior to 1998. Boyle, No. 05-0990, slip op. at 2.
ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a diabetic care provider . . . .”). Thus even under Mr. Boyle’s interpretation of the regulation (that the weekly diabetic visits are not required to be the result of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis), Mr. Boyle’s challenge to the 1996 rating decision and his claim of an earlier effective date fails based upon findings of fact that we may not disturb.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4
 § 7292
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4