CCK Wins Oral Argument After Board Denies Increased Rating for Diabetes on Extraschedular Basis
Summary of the Case
Mr. Petermann served in the United States Army from September 1988 to September 2010. During his separation examination, he reported having episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis, tingling and numbness in his hands due to low blood sugar, and the use of an insulin pump. In May of 2011, Mr. Petermann was granted service connection for diabetes mellitus type 2 with a 20 percent disability rating. He continued to appeal this decision to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. In an October 2015 Board of Veterans’ Appeals hearing, the Veteran stated that he was treated by a paramedic in 2010 for a hypoglycemic reaction. The Board granted an increased rating of 40% for his diabetes, but denied a rating in excess of that.
Board denies increased rating for diabetes and declines extraschedular referral
On February 11, 2016, the Board issued a decision that denied an increased rating for Mr. Petermann’s diabetes and declined to refer this issue for extraschedular consideration. The Board found that Mr. Petermann’s diabetes has been managed by insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities. However, his symptomatology does not meet the schedular requirements for the 60 percent disability rating. Additionally, the Board held that this issue did not warrant extraschedular consideration because the manifestations of his diabetes are contemplated by the schedular criteria and his 40 percent rating represents the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from his diabetes.
CCK presents an oral argument at Court
CCK successfully appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims the Board decision that denied an increased rating for Mr. Petermann’s diabetes and declined to refer this issue for extraschedular consideration. In June of 2017, CCK obtained a decision from the Court that vacated the Board’s February 2016 decision and remanded the case back to the Board. However, VA filed a motion for reconsideration in July of 2017. Subsequently, in February of 2018, CCK delivered an oral argument before the Court in Washington, D.C. CCK argued that the Board’s finding that all of Mr. Petermann’s diabetic symptoms are contemplated by the assigned 40 percent rating is contrary to the facts and misinterprets the extraschedular referral analysis. CCK did acknowledge that Mr. Petermann cannot attain a higher rating by more nearly approximating that rating under DC 7913 because of its successive criteria. Nonetheless, CCK asserted that the extraschedular referral was warranted to consider Mr. Petermann’s uncompensated symptoms.
Court agrees with CCK’s arguments
CCK argued, and the Court agreed, that the Board erred in finding that all of Mr. Petermann’s diabetes symptoms were contemplated by the 40 percent disability rating criteria. The Court held that because the rating criteria for diabetes are successive, his 40 percent disability rating only contemplates his insulin use, restricted diet, and regulation of activities, not the other symptoms that are potentially relevant to a 60 percent rating. Accordingly, the Court decided that a remand was required for the Board to provide an adequate statement of reasons and bases for its extraschedular consideration.
- CCK’s Oral Argument Leads to Precedential Decision for Gulf War Veterans
- CCK Wins Precedential Decision Regarding PTSD and TDIU
- TDIU Cases & Sedentary Work: CCK Wins Precedential Case
- CCK Partner Zachary Stolz Delivers En Banc Oral Argument in Case Regarding Extraschedular Referral
- Board Fails to Provide 90 Days After Court’s Decision, CCK Presents Oral Argument
- What Is an Extraschedular VA Disability Rating?
- Is My VA Disability Rating Permanent?
- I Received an Unfavorable Board Decision; What Should I Do?
- What is the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA)?
- As a Veteran, How Much Will My Appeal of a Board Denial to the Court Cost?
- 50 Percent Rating for Migraines
- VA Disability Rating Reevaluations
- VA Rating Reductions
- Maximum Rating for Hearing Loss
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals Explained
Share this Post