Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/28/fedcir-meaning-of-conjunctive-and-boyle-v-nicholson-non-precedential/
Timestamp: 2019-10-14 18:49:42
Document Index: 464408975

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4119', '§ 4119', '§ 7292', '§ 7292', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 4119']

FedCir. meaning of conjunctive "and", Boyle v. Nicholson, Non-precedential | Veteranclaims's Blog
FedCir. meaning of conjunctive "and", Boyle v. Nicholson, Non-precedential
Filed under: conjunctive "and"; Boyle; Watson v. Dept. Navy; — veteranclaims @ 7:20 pm
TAGS: Watson v. Dep’t of the Navy, 262 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
[The inclusion of the conjunctive “and” in sections 831.902 and 842.802 clearly indicates that all three criteria must be demonstrated in order for a position to be LEO-eligible.]
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.
disability rating, and in November of 1996, it increased the rating to sixty percent. Mr.
Boyle argues that the 1980 rating was the product of CUE because the Board
incorrectly “weighed” the criteria in 38 C.F.R. § 4.119 Diagnostic Code 7913 (1979) for a
forty percent rating. He contends that the 1996 rating was the product of CUE and that
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.
argues, at the time of the 1980 rating decision, for a forty percent rating, the regulation
required a “large insulin dosage, restricted diet, and careful regulation of activities.” 38
C.F.R. § 4119 Diagnostic Code 7913, 40 rating (1979). The use of the conjunctive