Painful Motion VA Ratings: OIG Finds Half of Claims Wrong

CCK Law: Our Vital Role in Veterans Law

From April 2024 to March 2025, VA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviewed a sample of veterans’ noncompensable joint disability claims and estimated that, in about 50 percent of those claims, VA misapplied its painful motion rule and assigned thousands of veterans a percentage rating lower than they may have been entitled to.

The OIG’s review, published August 6, 2026, traced the errors to years of inconsistent guidance inside VA’s own claims-processing system, rather than to any single rater’s mistake.

In this article, you will learn why these painful motion VA rating errors happened, how they have affected veterans, and what you should consider doing if these mistakes impacted your disability benefits claim.

Key points of this article include:

• The OIG reviewed a sample of noncompensable joint decisions completed between April 2024 and March 2025 and projected that 32,000 of 64,000 similar decisions, or 50 percent, were incorrect.
• About 12,000 of those errors cost veterans money, adding up to at least $45 million in underpayments.
• Leaders from three different Compensation Service offices gave the OIG three different interpretations of VA’s painful motion rule, indicating a systemic misunderstanding of how to actually apply the regulation.
• While VBA has asked VA’s Office of General Counsel for a single interpretation of the rule, a related manual revision is not targeted for completion until January 2027.

See CCK Law Partner and former Veterans Law Judge Bradley Hennings’ LinkedIn post about the recent errors surrounding painful motion VA ratings.

What Mistake Did VA Make Regarding Painful Motion VA Ratings?

Based on the data gathered from April 2024 to March 2025, ratings specialists across VA had been failing to apply the regulation 38 CFR § 4.59 (“Painful motion”) properly to musculoskeletal disability claims where painful motion was a factor, potentially leading to thousands of veterans being assigned noncompensable ratings when their joint disabilities should have qualified them for monthly compensation.

For context, while VA typically rates joint conditions based on limitation of motion, 38 CFR § 4.59 (also known as the “painful motion rule”) adds an important exception: An “actually painful” joint is entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating, usually 10 percent, even when motion is not measurably limited.

However, when the OIG reviewed a sample of 100 noncompensable joint disability claims, it discovered that VA claims processors did not consistently apply this exception. In its review, the OIG projected that 32,000 of 64,000 similar decisions from the same period (i.e., 50 percent) incorrectly evaluated painful motion. A second sample of decisions completed months later showed the same pattern continued as of November 2025.

According to the OIG, the core problem was not a single bad actor, but the absence of one consistent interpretation of 38 CFR § 4.59 across VA’s Compensation Service. For instance, when the OIG asked officials responsible for interpreting the regulation what the regulation actually required, three different offices gave three different answers:

VBA Official	Position on Whether Motion Must Accompany Pain
Chief of the procedures manual staff	Said an element of motion has to be present alongside the pain
Assistant director of training	Said pain alone should be sufficient, but was not fully certain
Acting assistant director for quality	Said motion is not required, then said motion and pain should go together anyway

These varying interpretations of 38 CFR § 4.59 among VA leaders and offices seem to have led to organization-wide confusion on how to apply the painful motion regulation to disability claims of the joint. This, in turn, has led to thousands of such claims being rated as noncompensable when, in fact, these veterans may have been entitled to at least minimum compensation.

What Did Petitti v. McDonald Establish About Painful Motion VA Ratings?

In its ruling on Petitti v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 415 (2015), the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) rejected VA’s argument that only objective, clinically observed evidence of painful motion could support a compensable joint rating. The Court held that a veteran’s own credible and competent lay statements describing pain during movement can, on their own, satisfy 38 CFR § 4.59’s “actually painful” joint standard and earn the veteran a minimum compensable disability rating.

Eventually, VA incorporated the Petitti ruling into its Adjudication Procedures Manual, directing claims processors to accept credible lay evidence of painful motion without requiring an examiner to separately confirm it. However, these guidelines are quite vague and often contradictory, and the OIG’s review found that even a decade after Petitti, VA still has not consistently trained or guided claims processors on how to apply that standard.

This inconsistency is a central reason so many recent noncompensable ratings ignored painful motion evidence, whether that evidence came from the veteran’s own statements, an examiner’s objective findings, or both.

Watch CCK Law Supervising Attorney Alyse Phillips discuss how VA uses range of motion testing for disability claims of the joint:

Why Did VA Make This Mistake?

These painful motion VA rating errors seem to stem from widespread uncertainty among VA leaders and claims processors about how to apply 38 CFR § 4.59 to disability claims of the joint. VA’s own Adjudication Procedures Manual seems to work against consistent decisions.

“The Manual doesn’t help,” says Bradley Hennings, partner at CCK Law. “It opens one section saying a painful joint — no mention of motion — can support a compensable rating. A few paragraphs later, the same guidance starts talking about painful motion instead.”

The confusion among VA rating specialists seems to be partly rooted in this lack of clarity as to whether “pain” and “painful motion” should be treated as two separate standards, or one and the same.

Elsewhere, the manual also refers to a veteran’s own subjective report of pain as “non-objective” evidence in its example scenarios, further blurring the line between what a veteran reports and what an examiner documents. This ambiguity also seems to apply to the electronic evaluation builder tool that VA claims processors are required to use when calculating a rating, further compounding the problem.

“The tool Claims Processors are required to use doesn’t distinguish between a veteran’s subjective report and an examiner’s objective findings,” says Hennings. “In fact, the knee input options aren’t even built the same way as the shoulder ones.”

Because of this widespread organizational uncertainty on how to correctly apply 38 CFR § 4.59, disability claims processors who do not fully understand the Petitti standard may be more likely to under-evaluate the disability claims of veterans suffering from these joint conditions.

How Does the Painful Motion VA Rating Error Affect Veterans?

Of the projected 32,000 errors resulting from VA’s inconsistency concerning painful motion claims, the OIG determined that about 12,000 of those errors were likely to have cost veterans monthly compensation. Per the OIG’s estimates, these veterans may have lost out on a total of about $45 million due to underpayments surrounding the error.

“There is an example from the report,” says Bradley Hennings. “A veteran with a service-connected knee reported weight-bearing pain, and the examiner separately documented pain on repeated use. However, the veteran was assigned a noncompensable rating, with no discussion of the painful motion either piece of evidence showed. After OIG flagged it, VA corrected the decision and issued a retroactive payment of $29,130.”

Veterans should also note that not every incorrect decision resulting from these painful motion VA rating errors actually impacted monthly disability payments. According to the OIG report, most of these painful motion errors (i.e., ~20,000 out of 32,000) did not change the veteran’s overall disability rating or compensation.

What Should I Do if My Joint Rating Did Not Account for Painful Motion?

Veterans who were assigned noncompensable ratings for their joint disabilities should consider reviewing their claims files to determine whether there is evidence of painful motion, and whether VA accounted for it. If VA did not, that veteran should consider pursuing a minimum compensable rating (i.e., 10 percent) for their disability under 38 CFR § 4.59.

“If you’re rated at 0 percent for a joint condition and pain shows up anywhere in your file, in the exam findings or in your own statement, ask whether that painful motion should have been rated compensable,” says Bradley Hennings.

An important factor here is that VBA reported in March of 2026 that all errors the OIG had identified had been corrected by February 2026. However, only the sampled and identified cases were corrected, meaning that the projected population of other affected veterans was not automatically corrected. Those veterans must pursue a claim review themselves.

If a veteran’s claims file includes evidence of painful motion that was not addressed by VA, there may be several options available to pursue a corrected disability rating. The right path depends on how old the original claim decision is:

1. Access and review your claims file (C-file) and exam report — Keep an eye out for any notes about pain, whether in your own statements or the examiner’s findings, including notes regarding weight-bearing or repeated-use pain.
2. If the VA decision is less than one year old — All decision-review options are typically still available, including a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) or a Higher-Level Review (VA Form 20-0996) or a Board appeal (VA Form 10182). Where the painful-motion evidence is already in the record and simply not addressed, HLR may be the natural lane, because it is a review of the existing record by a senior reviewer and does not require new evidence. Consult with a VA-accredited representative to be sure.
3. If the VA decision is final (over one year old) — You can still file a Supplemental Claim at any time if there is new and relevant evidence, although the effective date is generally the date of that filing rather than the original claim. (A Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE) motion might be a way to keep the original effective date after one year but is a much narrower path. VA regulations state that a disagreement over how evidence was weighed is not CUE, and that a later change in how a regulation is interpreted is not CUE either. A CUE argument would need to show that the correct facts were before the adjudicator and that the law extant at the time was undebatably misapplied. That is a demanding standard, and it is worth discussing with a VA-accredited representative before filing.)
4. Make note of the effective date — Filing any kind of appeal within one year of the date of the original decision can make a difference in how far back any retroactive pay extends.
5. Consider getting help from a VA-accredited representative — The appeals process can be complex, and an experienced, VA-accredited advocate or attorney can help you navigate the process and pursue any compensation you may be entitled to.

If VA agrees that a past decision should have been rated as compensable, the veteran may be entitled not only to a corrected rating and monthly compensation, but also retroactive compensation back to the effective date of the original claim, which might amount to thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars.

Is VA Working To Correct Its Mistake for Future Claims?

Yes, VA is taking steps to ensure that future ratings surrounding painful motion will be evaluated with more consistency in regard to 38 CFR § 4.59.

VA’s own assistant director for the Schedule for Rating Disabilities told the OIG that the confusion surrounding the painful motion rule may stem from years of court decisions interpreting and reinterpreting 38 CFR § 4.59. To address the issue, the assistant director suggested that VA’s Compensation Service obtain a single definition for the painful motion regulation, one approved by VA’s Office of General Counsel (OGC).

The OIG agreed with the assistant director and recommended the same fix. In response, on April 9, 2026, VBA asked OGC for a clear, consistent interpretation of Section 4.59, including whether pain alone, without any accompanying limitation of motion, is sufficient for a compensable rating. That opinion is still pending.

In the meantime, VBA has said it will not revise the Adjudication Procedures Manual or notify claims processors of any changes until after OGC responds. It has set a target completion date of January 31, 2027, for this manual revision, more than a year after the OIG first flagged the problem.

Looking for More Information on VA Joint Ratings?

Frequently Asked Questions About Painful Motion VA Ratings

Can pain alone qualify for a VA disability rating?

Yes, under 38 CFR § 4.59, an “actually painful” joint is entitled to at least the minimum compensable VA rating, even without a measurable loss of motion, as long as the pain is supported by credible and competent evidence under Petitti v. McDonald. However, in recent months, the OIG discovered that VA is having problems consistently implementing this regulation into their rating decisions.

What does noncompensable mean for VA disability?

A noncompensable rating, sometimes described as a 0 percent VA disability rating, means VA has recognized a service-connected condition but determined it does not currently warrant a monthly payment. While this lack of compensation may be disappointing to veterans, noncompensable ratings come with a few separate benefits and can help serve as a springboard to potentially earn a higher disability rating down the line.

How does VA rate joint conditions under 38 CFR § 4.59?

VA generally rates joints based on limitation of motion under 38 CFR § 4.71a. However, another regulation (38 CFR § 4.59) requires the veteran be assigned at least the minimum compensable rating whenever a joint is “actually painful” on motion, regardless of whether the limitation of motion alone would otherwise support a compensable rating for the joint. The varying interpretations of this regulation have led to confusion and error among VA rating specialists, and VA is now in the process of obtaining a singular, consistent definition by which to apply 38 CFR § 4.59.

Can VA correct a rating error and pay retroactively?

Yes, when VA determines that a past rating decision should have accounted for painful motion, it can correct the rating and, in many cases, pay retroactive compensation back to the effective date of the original claim.