Citation Nr: 18147589 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 16-35 236 DATE: November 5, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for loss of smell associated with chronic sinusitis is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for loss of taste associated with chronic sinusitis is remanded. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for facial scars associated with chronic sinusitis is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran is in receipt of the maximum schedular rating available for loss of smell. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected loss of smell have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6275. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to January 1968. This matter came to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for loss of smell. Disability evaluations are determined by comparing a Veteran’s present symptomatology with criteria set forth in the VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), which is based on average impairment in earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. When a question arises as to which of two ratings apply under a particular diagnostic code, the higher evaluation is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. The Veteran’s entire history is reviewed when making disability evaluations. See generally, 38 C.F.R. 4.1; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995). When rating the Veteran’s service-connected disability, the entire medical history must be borne in mind. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. (1991). In general, the degree of impairment resulting from a disability is a factual determination and the Board’s primary focus in such cases is upon the current severity of the disability. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 57-58 (1994); Solomon v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 396, 402 (1994). However, staged ratings are appropriate in any initial rating/increased-rating claim in which distinct time periods with different ratable symptoms can be identified. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-127 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). In A July 2016 statement, the Veteran requested a higher rating for his service-connected loss of smell. In December 2012, the Veteran was diagnosed with the complete loss of smell. The Veteran is currently assigned a 10 percent rating for his loss of smell associated with his service-connected chronic sinusitis. Under the applicable diagnostic criteria, hyposmia is assigned a 10 percent rating for complete loss of sense of smell. 38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, Diagnostic Code 6275. The Veteran’s service-connected loss of smell has been assigned the maximum schedular rating available for hyposmia. See 38 C.F.R. §4.87, Diagnostic Code 6257. Thus, no higher rating is warranted. Additionally, the record does not present, and it has not been asserted, that the record presents such an exceptional or unusual disability picture as to warrant the assignment of an extraschedular evaluation pursuant to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321. In this regard, the Board notes that there has been no demonstration that the service-connected loss of smell is productive of marked interference with employment beyond that contemplated in the current 10 percent rating, nor productive of frequent hospitalization, as to prevent the use of the regular rating criteria. The diagnostic criteria adequately contemplate the Veteran’s symptomatology. See Thun v. Shinseki, 572 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In sum, the Schedule for Rating Disabilities is shown to provide a fair and adequate basis for rendering a decision in this case. Consequently, referral for a higher rating on an extraschedular basis is not warranted.   REASONS FOR REMAND 2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for rating for loss of taste is remanded. In a July 2016 statement, the Veteran asserted that his loss of taste increased in severity since the Veteran was last examined by VA in December 2012. It is not known from the medical or lay evidence whether the Veteran’s loss of taste is complete. Therefore, the Veteran should be provided an opportunity to report for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his loss of taste. 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for facial scars is remanded. In a July 2016 statement, the Veteran asserted that his facial scars increased in severity since the Veteran was last examined by VA in December 2012. He noted that he was no longer able to close his eye. The Veteran should be provided an opportunity to report for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his facial scars. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for examinations by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected loss of taste and service-connected facial scars. The examiner should provide a full description of the disabilities and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disabilities under the rating criteria. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to each disability alone and discuss the effect of each disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. The examiner should consider the lay evidence of reports of the Veteran’s inability to completely close his eye due to facial scarring. If it is not possible to provide a specific measurement, or an opinion regarding symptoms or functional impairment without speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts) or a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required). S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Costello, Associate Counsel