BVA9502922 DOCKET NO. 93-04 229 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson, Mississippi THE ISSUE Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral plantar warts. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Margaret L. Peak, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from October 1978 to July 1984. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 1992 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Jackson, Mississippi. In March 1994 the case was administratively remanded to the RO for action not pertinent to this appeal. The claim is now ready for appellate review. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran disagrees with the decision of the RO that denied a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral plantar warts. He maintains that his employment is affected by the limitations imposed by his bilateral plantar warts; that he is unable to wear safety shoes due to his bilateral foot disorder; and that, therefore, he should be awarded a higher disability rating. DECISION OF THE BOARD The 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 preponderance of the evidene is against a rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral plantar warts. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's claim has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran has been diagnosed as having two distinct skin disorders. namely bilateral plantar warts, and hereditary hypertrophic keratosis of the hands and feet. 3. Clinically significant disability of the feet due to the service-connected bilateral plantar warts is not shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW A disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral plantar warts is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.3, 4.20, Part 4, Codes 5276, 7803, 7804, 7805, 7819 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The veteran is seeking a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral plantar warts. As an initial matter, the Board finds his claim to be "well-grounded" within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). That is to say, he has presented a claim that is not implausible. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). In general, an allegation of increased disability is sufficient to establish a well-grounded claim seeking an increased rating. Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992). The Board is also satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed and that no further assistance to the veteran is required to comply with the VA's duty to assist him mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The veteran's original claim was received in August 1982, and was for dental, eye, and foot disabilities. Dental and eye disabilities were not found. The report of a VA examination in September 1982 refers to plantar warts and dry, thickened and cracked skin on the palmar surfaces of the hands. Review of the veteran's service medical records shows that hyperkeratotic lesions on the palms were first noted in November 1978. The notation included the remark that they had been present since childhood, and that the veteran's father had similar lesions. Plantar warts were noted as a severe problem in March 1979. Painful calluses and debridement of multiple keratoses were noted in December 1981. In January 1982, the veteran was noted to have a familial history of ichthyosis palmaris. Throughout the veteran's service medical records is the acknowledgment that he had extensive and multiple foot problems, including pes planus, that existed prior to service. When referred for a dermatology consultation in January 1982, it was noted that three family members had palmar ichthyosis, and that plantar warts were a separate problem. In the original rating decision, made in November 1982, excessive callus formation on the hands was found to have existed prior to service and was considered congenital in nature. Congenital or developmental defects are not diseases, as such, within the meaning of applicable legislation providing compensation benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c). Therefore, hyperkeratotic lesions on the palmar surfaces of both hands was found to be not service connected. The veteran was granted service connection for bilateral plantar warts, and the disability was rated as non- compensably disabling from the date of his separation from service, in June 1982. The veteran's service records have subsequently been amended, and his official separation date is now acknowledged to be in July 1984. Bilateral plantar warts continued to be rated as non-compensably disabling until October 1989, when the rating was increased to 10 percent, effective April in 1989. In the October 1989 rating decision, the RO noted that a VA hospital summary for April 1989 showed multiple disabilities, including a statement that the lower extremities had bilateral hypertrophic calluses on the toes and heels. The veteran was sent to podiatry for trimming of the calluses; however, the primary disability treated was shown to be Dupuytren's contractures of both hands. It was the veteran's claim that he could not wear safety shoes because of the warts all over the bottom of his feet, and that, therefore, he was unable to maintain employment. The RO considered the veteran's claim of unemployability, and denied it. The veteran's most recent request to increase his rating was received in January 1992. A VA skin examination was conducted in February 1992. His subjective complaints at that time were pain in hands and feet due to pressure on hyperkeratotic lesions. The skin disorder was described as "hyperkeratotic wart-like lesions of the hands and feet." The examiner stated that the veteran demonstrated keratosis punctata (punctate keratoderma) of the hands and feet. This disorder was described as being "a chronic probably inherited condition made worse by pressure and friction." It was noted that there was no cure and that treatment was limited. In April 1992, the RO stated that "an increased evaluation for the veteran's service connected plantar warts is not warranted as current VAE[xamination] did not show evidence of any limitation of function of the lower extremities related to the service connected plantar warts." Absent manifestations of bilateral plantar warts, the RO planned a future examination to substantiate the apparent improvement in the service connected condition. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1993). The Board attempts to determine the extent to which the veteran's service connected disability adversely affects his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, and the assigned rating is based, as far as practicable, upon the average impairment of earning capacity in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.10 (1993). Where, as here, an unlisted condition is encountered, it is permissible to rate under a closely related disease or injury in which not only the functions affected, but also the anatomical localization and symptomatology are closely analogous. 38 C.F.R. § 4.20. Here, the RO has rated the veteran's bilateral plantar warts as analogous to benign new skin growths, under Diagnostic Code (DC) 7899-7819 of the Rating Schedule. Benign new growths of the skin are rated as scars and disfigurement, on the extent of constitutional symptoms and physical impairment. D.C. 7819. Scars may be evaluated on the basis of any related limitation of function of the body part which they affect. D.C. 7805. A 10 percent evaluation is warranted for superficial scars that are tender and painful on objective demonstration. DC 7804. From the record it is clear that the veteran suffers from multiple foot disorders. What is of concern to this Board is the extent to which his resultant disability may be attributed to the service-connected plantar warts, as opposed to the nonservice- connected disorders of pes planus and hyperkeratotic lesions that appear on both his hands and his feet. The report of the most recent VA examination, which was specifically for skin disorders, does not mention plantar warts at all. The discussion is limited to hyperkeratotic lesions on the palms and feet that this examiner identified as keratosis punctata. This clearly refers to the congenital skin disorder for which service connection has been denied in the past. Therefore, there is no basis upon which to find that bilateral plantar warts have worsened to warrant a disability rating greater than 10 percent. There is no indication in the record that the current schedular evaluation for bilateral plantar warts is inadequate to evaluate the impairment of the appellant's earning capacity due to the disability at issue, and it does not present such an exceptional or unusual disability picture as to render impractical the application of the regular schedule of standards. Therefore, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 relating to extraschedular evaluations are not applicable here. The Board has also considered all other potentially applicable provisions of 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4, whether or not they have been raised by the veteran, as required by Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). The Board finds no section that provides a basis upon which to assign a higher disability evaluation. ORDER A disability rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral plantar warts is denied. J. J. SCHULE 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 (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 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.