Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/04/02/conjunctive-and-in-rating-boyle-v-nicholson-no-2007-7074-fedcir/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:03:56+00:00

Document:
Conjunctive "and" in rating, Boyle v. Nicholson, No. 2007-7074, FedCir.
determined that there was not a CUE in either of the earlier rating decisions and that there was no evidence to support an earlier effective date for the one hundred percent rating for service-connected diabetes mellitus. Mr. Boyle appealed the Board’s decision to the Veterans Court.
decision of the Board. Boyle, No. 05-0990, slip op. at 3. The Veterans Court stated that Mr. Boyle’s CUE arguments amounted to “a disagreement with how the facts were weighed in the 1980 and 1996 rating decisions.” Id. at 1. For the 1980 rating decision, the Veterans Court explained that even if it accepted Mr. Boyle’s view that he was required to avoid strenuous occupational activities, that was only one factor for consideration in determining his rating. Id. Further, the Board found that the evidence at the time “included no assigned profile restriction on his activities and no evidence of high insulin usage, also factors to be considered for a 40% rating.” Id.
showing that Mr. Boyle was hospitalized three or more times per year for ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions or that he had weekly visits to a diabetic care provider were supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. Id. at 2 (citing 38 C.F.R. § 4119, Diagnostic Code 7913 (1996)). Had these matters been established, Mr. Boyle may have been entitled to a one hundred percent rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4119, Diagnostic Code 7913, 100 rating (1996).
Mr. Boyle’s claim that he had made weekly visits for diabetic care prior to January 5, 1998. Id. The Veterans Court pointed out that, at most, the evidence supported monthly visits, not weekly visits, and that the records did not show that “his visits were the result of a hypoglycemic reaction, as required for the 100% disability rating.” Id.
regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). We may, however, “review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation, or any interpretation thereof” by the Veterans Court. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c); see Forshey v. Prinicipi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc).
the rulings of the Board that the 1980 and 1996 ratings decisions were not tainted by CUE; and (ii) the Board’s affirmance of the VA’s award of a January 5, 1998 effective date for the one hundred percent disability rating.
the Board erred in refusing to find an earlier effective date for his one hundred percent rating because the Board misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 4.119 Diagnostic Code 7913 (1998).1 We address these contentions in turn.
Code 7913, 38 C.F.R. § 4.119, 20 rating (1979), a twenty percent rating for diabetes mellitus requires that there be no limitation of physical activity. This, he asserts, is the consequence of the word “without” in the Diagnostic Code. He argues that “without” means “none-no limitation.”2 He continues that the only other difference between the twenty percent rating he was assigned and the forty percent rating that he asserts he should have been assigned is the insulin dosage, which is vague. In that regard, he argues that the rater should have known what a large dosage is and that he was receiving such a dosage.

References: v. 
 § 4119
 § 4119
 § 7292
 § 7292
 v. 
 § 4
 § 4