Citation Nr: 18143811 Decision Date: 10/22/18 Archive Date: 10/22/18 DOCKET NO. 15-41 628 DATE: October 22, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for scars of the left middle and ring fingers is denied. REMANDED In addition, the issue of entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder has been remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has scars on his left middle and ring fingers that are stable, healed, nontender, and linear and do not have a total area equal to or greater than 39 square centimeters. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial compensable rating for service-connected scars of the left middle and ring fingers have not been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.16, 4.118, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7805. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1955 to October 1958. 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for scars of the left middle and ring fingers The Veteran contends that he should be entitled to an increased rating for his scar, however he does not specifically identify why. Further, he states that he has little feeling in his left index and middle fingers. The Veteran’s scar has a noncompensable (0 percent) rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DC 7802. However, the Board finds that DC 7805 is more appropriate. The diagnostic criteria for disorders of the skin are found at 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DCs 7801-7805. Under DC 7801, burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are deep and nonlinear in an area or areas of at least 6 square inches (39 sq. cm.) but less than 12 square inches (77 sq. cm.) warrant a 10 percent rating. Under DC 7802, burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are superficial and nonlinear in an area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater warrant a 10 percent evaluation. Note (2) under that code provides that if multiple qualifying scars are present, assign a separate evaluation for each affected extremity based on the total area of the qualifying scars that affect that extremity. Under DC 7804, one or two scars that are unstable or painful warrant a 10 percent evaluation. Note (2) for that code provides that if one or more scars are both unstable and painful, add 10 percent to the evaluation that is based on the total number of unstable or painful scars. Note (3) under that provides that scars evaluated under DCs 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7805 may also receive an evaluation under DC 7803, when applicable. DC 7805 provides that other scars (including linear scars) and other effects of scars evaluated under DCs 7800, 7801, 7802, and 7804 require the evaluation of any disabling effect(s) not considered in a rating provided under DCs 7800-04 under an appropriate diagnostic code. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.118, DCs 7801-7805. Evidence relevant to the current level of severity of the Veteran’s surgical scar of his back includes a VA examination in July 2013. This examination report notes scars on the Veteran’s middle and ring fingers from an injury while in service. The scars were not painful or unstable and did not have a total area equal to or greater than 39 square centimeters nor was it located on the head, face, or neck. The scars measured 5.5 centimeters total. The Veteran reported pain in his left hand and that his index finger is “crooked” since the incident. The examiner indicated that the scars were painful, unstable, or greater than 39 square centimeters, but did not provide further information. The Veteran had a subsequent examination in August 2017. This examiner noted scars on the middle and ring finger, but the scars are superficial, linear, nontender, and stable. Further, both scars measured 2.0 centimeters by .1 centimeters. The examiner also noted that there was no evidence of paresthesia of the left hand or any of the fingers and that there was no indication that there would be paresthesia as a result of the initial crush injury. A third examination was conducted in January 2018. The Veteran’s symptoms and history were the same as prior examinations. The Veteran reported that he had left hand pain on a daily basis and took pain meds. However, there was no evidence of paresthesia or neurological involvement. Given the above, the Board finds that the criteria for a rating in excess of zero percent for the Veteran’s scars of his fingers have not been met. The VA examination reports show that the Veteran’s scars are not painful or unstable. A higher rating of 10 percent, under DC 7804, provides a 10 percent rating for one or two scars that are unstable or painful. Further, under 7802, a 10 percent rating would be available if the Veteran’s scars measured greater than 39 square centimeters and were deep and nonlinear. Because these criteria are not met, a 10 percent disability rating for the Veteran’s scars is not warranted. To afford the Veteran the highest possible rating, the Board evaluated his disability under all potentially applicable diagnostic codes. However, a compensable rating is not warranted under the diagnostic codes pertaining to scars because the record does not show, and the Veteran does not contend, that the scars are deep, nonlinear, painful, or unstable. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DCs 7800 to 7805. The Board notes that the Veteran complains of pain. In a Board decision in May 2017, the Veteran was granted a 10 percent rating for painful degenerative joint disease of his left index and middle fingers. Therefore, the Veteran’s pain is already compensated by another DC. In view of the above, the weight of the evidence is against the claim for an initial compensable rating for scars of the left fingers. Accordingly, the claim is denied. Absent a relative balance of the evidence for and against the claim, the evidence is not in equipoise and the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). REMANDED ISSUE 1. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is remanded. The Board notes that a rating decision was issued in August 2013 denying entitlement to service connection for a heart condition. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement with that rating decision in August 2013. However, to date no statement of the case has been issued. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that the filing of a notice of disagreement initiates the appeal process, and that the failure of the RO to issue a statement of the case is a procedural defect requiring a remand. See Manlicon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999); see also Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398, 408-410 (1995). The issue of entitlement to service connection for a heart condition must be remanded by the Board to allow the RO or the AMC to issue a statement of the case on this claim. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Issue a statement of the case addressing entitlement to service connection for a heart condition. The Veteran must be advised of the requirements to perfect an appeal with respect to the new issue. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. M. Hitchcock