Citation Nr: 18147059 Decision Date: 11/02/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-38 938 DATE: November 2, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a compensable rating for post-operative residuals of an inguinal hernia is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s underwent surgical repair for his right inguinal hernia in January 2015 and does not have any recurrent hernias. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating for post-operative residuals of an inguinal hernia have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.114 (Diagnostic Code 7338). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Board notes that the record in this claim includes evidence showing that the Veteran has complained of numbness to the area of scar from hernia surgery with pain over the lower inguinal area that is not related or over the scar. In his appeal statement, the Veteran specified that the affected nerve is the ilioinguinal nerve. The Board finds that this raises a claim for secondary service connection for a nerve injury with pain. That matter is referred to the RO for adjudication. The Veteran had active military service from February 2012 to February 2016. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from the May 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boston, Massachusetts. I. VA’s Duties to Notify and Assist Pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.326 (2017). The Veteran has participated in the Fully Developed Claim Program (FDC), which is designed to expedite the claims process, and thus received complete VCAA notice in conjunction with his 2015 application for benefits. See VA Form 21-526EZ. The duty to notify was satisfied prior to the RO’s initial decision by way of notification provided to the appellant with his Fully Developed Claim Form (VA 21-526EZ) that informed him of his duty and the VA’s duty for obtaining evidence. The notice that accompanies the Fully Developed Claims form informed the appellant of what evidence is required to substantiate a claim for service connection and of the appellant’s and VA’s respective duties for obtaining evidence. The notice also provides information on how VA assigns disability ratings in the event that service connection is established. Thus, the notice that is part of the claim form submitted by the appellant satisfies the VCAA duty to notify. The Veteran has not identified, and the record does not otherwise indicate, any additional relevant medical records that have not been obtained and associated with his file. Additionally, a VA examination has been secured in connection with the current claim satisfying VA’s duty to assist with respect to obtaining a VA examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). VA has substantially complied with the notice and assistance requirements and the Veteran is not prejudiced by a decision on his claim at this time II. Legal Criteria for Increased Ratings Generally Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (2017). The Rating Schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The Board will consider entitlement to staged ratings to compensate for times since filing the claim when the disability may have been more severe than at other times during the course of the claim on appeal. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 199 (1999). VA should interpret reports of examination in light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability shall be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations apply, the higher of the two should be assigned where the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2017). IV. Analysis The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file, with an emphasis on the medical and lay evidence for the issue on appeal. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence of record. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has held that the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence. Gonzalez v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence where appropriate, and the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as to the claim. The Veteran contends that his post-operative residuals of his right inguinal hernia warrant a compensable rating. The Veteran’s disability is currently rated under diagnostic code 7338. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114. Under this diagnostic code, a 10 percent rating is warranted for postoperative recurrent inguinal hernia that is readily reducible and well supported by truss or belt; a 30 percent rating is warranted a small inguinal hernia, postoperative recurrent, or unoperated ir-remediable, not well supported by truss, or not readily reducible; and, a 60 percent rating is warranted for a large inguinal hernia, postoperative, recurrent, not well supported under ordinary conditions and not readily reducible, when considered inoperable. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114. In January 2016, the Veteran underwent a VA hernia examination. The examiner noted that the Veteran underwent surgical repair for his right inguinal hernia in January 2015. The examiner noted that no recurrent hernia was detected at the time of the examination and there was no indication for a supporting belt. The examiner noted that the Veteran has scars related to his hernia surgery. However, these scars were not noted to be painful, unstable, or cover a total area greater than 39 square centimeters. The examiner did state that the Veteran has numbness to the area of the Veterans scar. The Veteran also reported pain over the lower inguinal area that is not related or over the scar. The examiner concluded that the Veteran’s hernia condition does not impact his ability to work. With regard to the Veteran’s right inguinal hernia, the Board notes that he is not shown to have any recurrences or residuals of his hernia surgery, other than his subjective complaints of pain at the surgery site. To the extent that he has pain, the Board acknowledges that Diagnostic Code 7338 does not address the specific symptom of pain. As noted above, the Board is referring back to the RO a claim for service connection for a nerve injury. After reviewing the medical and lay evidence of record, the Board finds that a compensable rating for the Veteran’s inguinal hernia is not warranted. Specifically, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s hernia is recurrent, readily reducible, and well supported by truss or belt, which would warrant a higher rating. In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. Mountford, Associate Counsel