Citation Nr: 18159102 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 17-02 752 DATE: December 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for scar of the back, residuals of second degree burn, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran is in receipt of the maximum schedular evaluation for scar of the back, residuals of second degree burn, under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for scar of the back, residuals of second degree burn have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force from July 1972 to July 1975. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for scar of the back, residuals of second degree burn, is denied. The Veteran seeks a higher rating for his service-connected burn scar residuals. A 10 percent rating is currently effective from November 13, 1981 for service-connected residuals of a burn scar of the back, under Diagnostic Code 7802. In November 2016, the RO granted a separate 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 7804 for burn scar on the back, effective July 22, 2010. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that an increased rating is not warranted. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The percentage ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity and individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability 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. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In a claim for a greater original rating after an initial award of service connection, all of the evidence submitted in support of the veteran’s claim is to be considered. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and increase in disability rating is at issue, present level of disability is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). VA must determine whether the level of disability warrants the assignment of different disability ratings at different times over the life of the claim, a practice known as a “staged rating.” See Fenderson, 12 Vet. App at 119; Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2008). In October 2010, a VA examiner observed a burn scar on the posterior thoracic area that was 35 cm by 20 cm. The scar was superficial, painless, and stable, and there was no underlying soft tissue damage. The Veteran reported no functional limitation or limitation or motion due to the scar. During an August 2012 VA examination, the examiner observed a burn scar on the left mid-back that was 2 cm by 2 cm and less than deep partial thickness. The examiner found that the scar was well-healed and neither painful nor unstable. The scar did not result in any limitation of function. No scars were located on the Veteran’s head, face, or neck. In October 2016, a VA examiner observed a burn scar on the low to upper back that was 30 cm by 33 cm and of deep partial thickness. The scar was painful, but not unstable. The scar did not result in any limitation of function. No scars were noted on the Veteran’s head, face, or neck. The Board finds that a rating in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran’s service-connected residuals of a burn scar is not warranted, as the Veteran is in receipt of the maximum schedular evaluation available under Diagnostic Code 7802. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. The Board also finds that a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted under any other Diagnostic Code pertaining to scars, as the Veteran’s scar is not located on his head, face, or neck to warrant consideration under Diagnostic Code 7800, and is not shown to be associated with underlying soft tissue damage to warrant consideration under Diagnostic Code 7801. The Veteran is in receipt of a separate 10 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 7804, based on one painful scar. However, a rating in excess of 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 7804 is not warranted because the Veteran has one scar that is painful, which is fully contemplated by a 10 percent rating. There is no evidence the Veteran has more than one scar. Moreover, the Veteran’s scar is not shown to be unstable, with frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7804, Note (2). As such, a higher rating is not available under Diagnostic Code 7804. Additionally, the Veteran’s scar is not shown to have any disabling effects other than pain, which is contemplated under the 10 percent rating assigned under Diagnostic Code 7804. Therefore, Diagnostic Code 7805 is not for application in this case. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Freeman, Associate Counsel