Citation Nr: 0005780 Decision Date: 03/03/00 Archive Date: 03/14/00 DOCKET NO. 96-06 936 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable rating for a laceration scar, right thigh. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. J. Loring, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had 10 years active military service prior to his discharge in 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 1994 rating decision by the Detroit, Michigan, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA). A notice of disagreement was received in February 1995, a statement of the case was issued in March 1995, and a substantive appeal was received in November 1995. This case was previously before the Board and was remanded to the RO in March 1998 for further development. The RO has complied with the remand requests and the case has been returned to the Board for appellate review. FINDING OF FACT The laceration scar of the veteran's right thigh is well healed without tenderness, adhesion, tissue loss, neurovascular involvement, or limitation of motion of the right hip or thigh. CONCLUSION OF LAW The schedular criteria for a compensable disability rating for a laceration scar of the right thigh have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5251, 5252, 5253; 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Codes 7804, 7805 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The veteran is appealing the original assignment of a disability evaluation following an award of service connection, and, as such, the claim for the increased evaluation is well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Shipwash v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 218, 224 (1995). As it is also an appeal from an initial grant of service connection and originally assigned evaluation, separate evaluations may be assigned for separate time periods that are under evaluation. That is, the Board must consider "staged ratings" based upon the facts found during the time period in question. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). The Board also finds that the duty to assist the veteran has been met and that the record as it stands allows for an equitable determination of the veteran's appeal. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). In assessing the veteran's disability, the Board reviews the evaluations as determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. Any reasonable doubt regarding a degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (1999). Service medical records reveal that the veteran suffered a laceration to his right thigh during service. He was granted service connection effective January 1994, and assigned a noncompensable rating subsequent to a September 1994 VA examination. His disability was evaluated pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7805, which refers to scars. Under this diagnostic code, a scar is assessed according to limitation of motion of the part affected, in this instance the right thigh. Following the schedular criteria of 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5251, a 10 percent rating is assigned for limitation of extension of the thigh to 10 degrees, and under Diagnostic Code 5252, a 10 percent rating is assigned for limitation of flexion to 45 degrees. A 10 percent rating is assigned under Diagnostic Code 5253 for limitation of rotation of the thigh such that one cannot toe-out the affected leg more than 15 degrees, or when there is limitation of adduction such that one cannot cross one's legs. VA outpatient and hospital records covering the period from June 1990 through November 1991 showed no complaints or clinical findings with respect to the right thigh or right thigh laceration scar. The September 1994 VA examination report reflected the veteran's complaints of pain in the right leg with walking, and numbness in the posterior, anterior, and medial portion of the right thigh. The objective examination indicated that the veteran had a 5 inch scar of the right proximal thigh from mid anterior at the inguinal ligament to the medial thigh, about 3 inches above the scrotum. The scar was not depressed and there was no apparent muscle loss or nerve injury. There was no evidence of limited motion of the right thigh. However, there was no range of motion study specific to the right thigh that accompanied the examination report. The veteran's case was remanded for further evaluation of his disability. VA outpatient records were obtained from June 1997 through June 1998, and there was no reference, complaint, or clinical finding with respect to the veteran's right thigh scar. He was treated for degenerative disc disease of the spine and rheumatoid arthritis of the knee, but there was no treatment for the right thigh. The veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 1999. The veteran complained of irritation and scratching sensation near the scar but there was no report of difficulty walking or pain. The objective examination revealed a 2 1/2 inch transverse linear scar that was well healed. The examiner noted that the scar was hardly visible and only skin deep. It was non-tender without adhesions, tissue loss or neurovascular involvement. There was full range of motion of the right hip and knee with a normal X-ray. As is apparent from the medical evidence of record, the veteran's laceration scar, right thigh, has not shown residuals sufficient to warrant a compensable rating at any time since the original grant of service connection. There is no indication of any loss of function of the affected right thigh. Nor is there evidence that the scar is objectively tender or painful such that consideration is warranted under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7804, which refers to superficial scars. Accordingly, as the preponderance of the evidence is against a compensable rating for laceration scar, right thigh, at any time since the January 1994 effective date of the award, the claim must be denied. It follows that there is no evidence of record in relative equipoise, thus the doctrine of reasonable doubt is not for application. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990). ORDER The appeal is denied. ALAN S. PEEVY Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals