Citation Nr: 18155286 Decision Date: 12/03/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 16-53 674 DATE: December 3, 2018 ORDER A 10 percent evaluation for hammer toes, right foot is granted. REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for hemorrhoids is remanded. FINDING OF FACT For the entire period on appeal, service-connected hammer toe of the right foot has affected the second through the fifth toes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a 10 percent rating for hammer toes, right foot have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Diagnostic Code 5282 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1988 to February 2008. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for hammer toes, right foot Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The Schedule is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. When two evaluations are potentially applicable, VA will assign the higher evaluation when the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. VA will resolve reasonable doubt as to the degree of disability in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. If the evidence for and against a claim is in equipoise, the claim will be granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56 (1990). Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability should be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. In evaluating the severity of a particular disability, it is essential to consider its history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). A complete medical history of the Veteran is therefore required for a rating evaluation. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). In addition, VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations which are potentially applicable, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusions. The Veteran’s hammertoes of the right foot are rated under Diagnostic Code 5282. Under Diagnostic Code 5282, a 10 percent rating is assigned for hammer toe involving all toes, unilateral without claw foot. A zero percent rating is assigned for hammer toe involving single toes. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in October 2012. The Veteran was noted to have hammertoes of the second through fifth toes on his right foot. The examiner indicated that the Veteran did not have claw foot. See DBQ Foot, submitted October 15, 2012. The Veteran was also afforded a VA Examination in April 2014. He was again noted to have hammertoes of the second through fifth toes on his right foot, without clawfoot. See C&P Exam, dated April 28, 2014. A June 2015 VA Podiatry Note also indicates that the Veteran’s hammertoes involved his second through fifth toes. See CAPRI, entry dated June 17, 2015. Based on the above, the Veteran’s hammer toe disability of the right foot more nearly approximates the criteria for a 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5282 of 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. The evidence reflects that during the period for consideration, the Veteran was shown to have hammertoes of toes 2, 3, 4, and 5. Code 5282 provides for a 0 percent rating for a single hammertoe, and a 10 percent rating for hammertoes of all toes. Applying 38 C.F.R. § 4.7, the Board finds that the Veteran's hammertoes more closely approximate the criteria for a 10 percent rating, as four of the five toes are hammertoes (far in excess of the single toe hammertoe in the 0 percent rating criteria). Accordingly, a 10 percent rating is warranted. Although this higher rating of 10 percent is warranted, an even higher rating for the right foot is not warranted under Diagnostic Code 5282 as 10 percent is the maximum assignable rating under that code. Moreover, Diagnostic Code 5282 is the appropriate diagnostic code for evaluating hammertoes as it is a specifically listed disability. See Copeland v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 333, 337-38 (2015) (it is error as a matter of law to rate by analogy when a condition is specifically listed). REASONS FOR REMAND The issue of entitlement to service connection for hemorrhoids is remanded. The Veteran contends that his current diagnosed hemorrhoid condition was incurred in or is related to his active service. The Veteran’s service treatment records indicate that he complained of blood in his stool during service in October 2004, prompting him to undergo a colonoscopy. A subsequent December 2004 treatment record indicated that the Veteran had a grade 1 hemorrhoid. See STR Medical, entries dated October 21, 2004 and December 1, 2004. At the Veteran’s separation examination, he indicated that he had a history of blood from the rectum; however, the examiner noted no abnormalities related thereto. Thus far, no examination or opinion has been provided on this issue. Accordingly, as the record indicates that the Veteran has a current diagnosis that may be associated with active service, a remand seeking such an examination and opinion is necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Include in the claims file any relevant VA medical evidence not currently of file. 2. Schedule an examination to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s hemorrhoids. After reviewing the claims file, interviewing the Veteran, and examining the Veteran, the examiner should answer the following question: Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or more) that hemorrhoid disability had its onset in service or is otherwise related to a disease or injury in service. In addressing this question, consider and discuss the service treatment records concerning blood in the stool in October 2004 and a grade 1 hemorrhoid in December 2004. Please explain in detail any opinion provided. CHRISTOPHER MCENTEE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Marsh II, Associate Counsel