BVA9503986 DOCKET NO. 91-46 628 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for plantar wart and callus of the right foot. 2. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for cervical dysplasia. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Auer, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1986 to September 1990. Other duty is reported, but has not been verified. This appeal arises from a December 1990 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New Orleans, Louisiana, Regional Office (RO). In that decision, service connection for plantar wart and callus of the right foot and cervical dysplasia was granted and noncompensable evaluations were assigned. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that a compensable evaluation is warranted for the plantar wart and callus of the right foot as this disorder causes constant pain and swelling of the foot. She also argues a compensable evaluation is warranted for cervical dysplasia because she is required to visit her doctor once every three months for a checkup to ensure that her disorder does not recur. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the evidence supports an increased rating of 10 percent for plantar wart and callus of the right foot. It is further the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against an increased rating for cervical dysplasia. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. The plantar wart and calluses of the right foot are painful. 3. Cervical dysplasia is manifested by no discernible symptoms. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The schedular criteria for an evaluation of 10 percent for plantar wart and calluses of the right foot have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.71a, 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 5284-7819-7806 (1994). 2. The schedular criteria for a compensable evaluation for cervical dysplasia have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.3, 4.115b, 4.116a, Diagnostic Codes 7612-7529 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The veteran's claims are well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a), in that she has presented claims that are plausible. The Board is also satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed. I. An Increased Evaluation for Plantar Wart and Callus of the Right Foot The veteran's service medical records show that in July 1990 she was treated for calluses of the right foot. She was examined by the VA in November 1990. Examination of her right foot revealed a plantar wart at the distal third of the metatarsal bone, described as tender to pressure. She was able to walk in tandem in a heel-to-toe fashion without difficulty. On X-ray examination of the right foot, no arthritic changes or bone spurs were noted. The diagnosis was plantar wart with associated callus on the sole of the right foot. By rating decision of December 1990, service connection was granted for plantar wart and callus of the right foot and a noncompensable evaluation was assigned pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.71a, 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 5284-7819. The veteran testified before a hearing officer at the RO in March 1991. At that time, she testified that the calluses and plantar wart on her right foot hurt her immensely, become inflamed and swollen. She stated that she felt pain and had problems with them on a daily basis (Tr. at 2). The veteran was given a VA examination in May 1991. At that time, her feet were described as within normal limits. Function studies revealed that the range of motion of the ankle, subtalar joint, and metatarsal joints was essentially within normal limits. Hyperkeratosis was present on the dorsal proximal interphalangeal joints of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th toes with the most severe lesions being on the 2nd, 4th and 5th toes of the right foot. No evidence of a plantar callus or wart was present. The veteran was seen several times at a VA outpatient treatment clinic in 1992. In February 1992, she received routine foot care and debridement. This procedure was repeated in August 1992. As noted above, the veteran's right foot disorder has been evaluated under the schedular criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5284 and 38 C.F.R. § 4.188, Diagnostic Code 7819. Under Diagnostic Code 5284, a compensable evaluation of l0 percent is warranted if the veteran's right foot disability is productive of moderate impairment. Under Diagnostic Code 7819, the veteran's right foot disorder may be evaluated under the schedular criteria of Diagnostic Code 7806. Under Diagnostic Code 7806, a compensable evaluation at the rate of 10 percent contemplates the presence of exfoliation, exudation, or itching involving an exposed surface or extensive area. Based upon the evidence presented above, as well as the veteran's complaints of frequent pain and swelling in the right foot, it is the decision of the Board that this is evidence of moderate injury of the foot and to be rated as 10 percent disabling under Diagnostic Code 5284. The Board finds that the evidence discussed above does not suggest, and the veteran does not contend, that her service- connected right foot disorder presents such an exceptional or unusual disability picture so as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards and to warrant the assignment of an extra-schedular evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). She has not been frequently hospitalized for treatment of her disorder nor has it been shown that her disorder markedly affects employability beyond that contemplated by the rating schedule. Accordingly, the schedular criteria are adequate to rate this disability. For the foregoing reasons, the Board concludes that the record does not present an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence that would warrant resolution of any doubt as to the veteran's entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for her service-connected right foot disorder. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b). II. An Increased Evaluation for Cervical Dysplasia Cervical dysplasia is evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, Diagnostic Code 7529. A compensable evaluation is based on interference with the genitourinary system. By rating decision of December 1990, service connection for cervical dysplasia was granted and a noncompensable evaluation was established. When examined by the VA in November 1990, there was no indication that the veteran was experiencing any genitourinary impairment due to the cervical dysplasia. At the hearing in March 1991, the veteran testified that she really did not feel any discomfort from cervical dysplasia (Tr. at 2). The only positive testimony she gave at that hearing with regard to this disability is that she was required to report to her physician every three months to check for cancerous cells. Finally, evidence of treatment by the VA between November 1990 and September 1992 shows no evidence of symptoms associated with cervical dysplasia. Based on the above described evidence, it is the decision of the Board that medical evidence does not demonstrate interference with the genitourinary system. The regular examinations described as required by the veteran are not a basis for assigning a compensable evaluation for cervical dysplasia. It is the defined and consistently applied policy of VA to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case. When after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. See § 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102 and 4.3. Such a doubt has not been raised in this case. In the exceptional case where the schedular evaluations are found to be inadequate, an extra-schedular evaluation may be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321. Such evaluation would require a showing that the case presents such an exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards. In this case, there is no evidence that such an unusual disability picture is present. No evidence has been presented of marked interference with employment nor has the veteran required frequent hospitalizations for symptoms associated with her cervical dysplasia. Accordingly, an increased compensable evaluation for the service connected cervical dysplasia is not warranted. ORDER An increased rating of 10 percent for plantar wart and callus of the right foot is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of VA benefits. The claim for an increased (compensable) evaluation for cervical dysplasia is denied. WARREN W. RICE, JR. Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.