Citation Nr: 1035989 Decision Date: 09/23/10 Archive Date: 09/30/10 DOCKET NO. 08-17 609 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boise, Idaho THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from August 1, 2002 to April 4, 2007, to include the propriety of a rating reduction from 100 percent to zero percent (non-compensable). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert E. P. Jones INTRODUCTION The Veteran had active service from May 1946 to August 1968. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2008 rating decision by which the RO granted an earlier effective date of May 8, 2001, for service connection for the Veteran's AAA. The RO assigned a 100 percent disability rating effective May 8, 2001, a zero percent evaluation effective August 1, 2002, and a 100 percent evaluation effective April 5, 2007. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a 100 percent evaluation between August 1, 2002 and April 4, 2007 and asserts that a rating reduction was improper. The procedural history of this case is rather complex. In August 2001, the Veteran filed a claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus type II and hypertension. By rating decision dated in July 2002, the RO, in pertinent part, granted service connection for hypertension with AAA repair and assigned a 10 percent disability rating effective July 9, 2001. On April 5, 2007, the Veteran asked that his service-connected disabilities be reevaluated. By September 2007 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for an AAA as a separate disability from hypertension and assigned it a 100 percent rating effective April 5, 2007. In a November 2007 notice of disagreement, the Veteran argued that he was entitled to an effective date in July 2001 for the grant of service connection for an AAA and for the 100 percent rating. By April 2008 rating decision, the RO assigned a 100 percent rating for service-connected AAA (previously rated with hypertension under Diagnostic Code 7101) effective May 1, 2001, a zero percent rating effective August 1, 2002, and a 100 percent rating effective April 5, 2007. Because the full benefit sought on appeal regarding an earlier effective date for service connection was granted, that issue is no longer before the Board. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2009). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). FINDING OF FACT From August 1, 2002 to April 4, 2007, the Veteran's abdominal aortic aneurysm was greater than 5 centimeters in diameter. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a 100 percent rating for abdominal aortic aneurysm, from August 1, 2002 to April 4, 2007, have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.7, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7110 (2009). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION In this decision, the Board grants entitlement to a 100 percent rating for AAA form August 1, 2002, to April 4, 2007, which constitutes a complete grant of the Veteran's claim. Therefore, no discussion of VA's duty to notify or assist is necessary. Aortic aneurysms are evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7110. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, DC 7110 (2009). This code provides that a 60 percent rating is warranted for an aneurysm that precludes exertion. The maximum schedular rating of 100 percent is warranted for an aneurysm that is 5 centimeters (cms.) or larger in diameter or is symptomatic; or for an indefinite period from the date of hospital admission for surgical correction, including any type of graft insertion. Note (3) to this code provides that a 100 percent rating shall be assigned as of the date of admission for surgical correction and that the appropriate disability rating shall be determined by mandatory VA examination six months following discharge from the hospital. Any change in evaluation based upon that or any subsequent examination is subject to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e). Id. A December 2000 private ultrasound report indicates that the Veteran's AAA measured 5.2 cm. in length with a maximal intraluminal dimension of 5.2 cm. In February 2001, the Veteran underwent an endograft repair of his AAA. A December 2001 note states that the Veteran had a type II endoleak and that the AAA had not decreased in size. A January 2002 medical record indicates that the Veteran underwent a successful embolization of his type II leak. A January 2003 radiology report notes that the Veteran's AAA measured approximately 5 cms. in greatest diameter. A June 2003 radiology report notes that the AAA measured 4.8 cms. in the greatest AP dimension and 5.9 cms. in the greatest transverse dimension. A February 2004 radiology report revealed the AAA to measure about 5 cms. AP by 6 cms. in the greatest transverse dimension. The AAA was noted to be 5 to 6 cms. in diameter in February 2005. A March 2006 radiology report notes that the Veteran had a large AAA. A March 2007 CT scan revealed AAA dimensions of 5.6 x 5.0 cms. As noted, DC 7110 provides that, six months following discharge from the hospital for surgical correction of an aneurysm, the appropriate disability rating shall be determined by mandatory VA examination. Because a separate rating was not assigned for the Veteran's aneurysm until September 2007, however, he was not afforded a timely examination. Regardless, a review of the radiology reports and the CT scan described above show that between August 1, 2002 and April 4, 2007, the Veteran's AAA continued to be 5 centimeters or larger in diameter even though he had undergone surgery. Consequently, the Board finds that the Veteran's AAA met the criteria for a 100 percent rating during that entire time period under consideration. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) (citing Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999)). (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) ORDER Entitlement to a 100 percent rating for abdominal aortic aneurysm from August 1, 2002 to April 4, 2007 is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the payment of monetary benefits. ____________________________________________ MICHAEL T. OSBORNE Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs