Citation Nr: 21073650 Decision Date: 12/09/21 Archive Date: 12/09/21 DOCKET NO. 18-07 416 DATE: December 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected ventral hernia is denied. FINDING OF FACT Throughout the appeal period, the evidence has not indicated that the Veteran's ventral hernia would not be well supported by a belt. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a compensable rating, for ventral hernia, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.114, Diagnostic Code 7339. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served as a member of the United States Marine Corps, with active service from June 1989 to June 1993. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision, dated July 2015, issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia (hereinafter Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ)). In its decision, the AOJ granted service connection for a ventral hernia (claimed as growth in stomach) with an evaluation of 0 percent effective December 10, 2013. The Veteran timely appealed. A Board hearing was held before the undersigned Judge in January 2020. The hearing transcript has been associated with the Veteran's file. In February 2020, the Board remanded the appeal for additional evidentiary development. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected ventral hernia. The Veteran seeks a compensable rating for his service-connected ventral hernia. Specifically, he contends that he continues to have problems that he believes are related to his hernia like pain that causes functional loss and loss of at least 0-1 week of lost time during the past 12 months. He further claims of pain when stretching, bending and when he makes certain movements such as picking up an item from the floor, dressing, or raising his arms over his head. See, October 2021 Appellate Brief. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which 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. The basis of disability ratings is the ability of the body, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body, to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. The determination of whether an increased rating is warranted is based on review of the entire evidence of record and the application of all pertinent regulations. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). Where there is a question as to which of two ratings shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. The Veteran's service-connected ventral hernia injury is currently rated noncompensable under Diagnostic Code 7339. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114. Diagnostic Code 7339 provides that a 0 percent rating is warranted for wounds, postoperative, healed, no disability, belt not indicated. A 20 percent rating is warranted for small hernia, not well supported by belt under ordinary conditions, or healed ventral hernia or post-operative wounds with weakening of abdominal wall and indication for a supporting belt. A higher 40 percent rating is warranted for a large hernia, not well supported by belt under ordinary conditions. A 100 percent rating is warranted for a massive hernia, persistent, severe diastasis of recti muscles or extensive diffuse destruction or weakening of muscular and fascial support of abdominal wall so as to be inoperable. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114, Diagnostic Code 7339. There are multiple VA examinations of record from the period on appeal, as well as VA treatment records reflecting the Veteran's continuing complaints of dull and sharp pain in the middle of his abdomen. The Veteran was accorded a VA examination in July 2015. The examiner noted the Veteran's February 1991 diagnosis of a ventral hernia injury. The examiner noted that the Veteran noted development of a "lump in my stomach" after engaging in repetitive heavy lifting while working at Arlington Cemetery and assisting with funeral services there. The Veteran was seen and examined at the Washington Navy Yard and was told that he had epiplocele (also known as a ventral hernia). The examiner noted that since that time, the Veteran states that his ventral hernia is occasionally tender, but he has not noticed any change in size. The examiner noted that the Veteran does not wear any belt or truss for support. Upon physical examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran has a ventral hernia and that surgical repair has never been recommended. The examiner indicated that the examination revealed that the Veteran has been in a weight loss program and that he lost 40 pounds, as a result the abdominal mass is more noticeable to him. The Veteran was advised to seek follow-up for enlargement or persistent pain. The VA examiner noted that the ventral hernia does not impact his ability to work. Following the January 2020 Board remand, the Veteran underwent another VA examination in August 2020. The examiner noted the Veteran's diagnosis of ventral hernia injury and recorded his current symptoms of dull and sharp pain, rating it at 8/10. The examiner noted that there is no previous surgery, but the Veteran's hernia appears operable and remediable. There was also no indication for support with the use of a support belt. The examiner noted that the Veteran's ventral hernia was small and that there was no indication for a supporting belt. Based on the evidence of record, the Board concludes that a compensable rating of 20 percent is not warranted for the Veteran's service-connected ventral hernia injury. The VA examinations and treatment records indicate that his ventral hernia is not postoperative, small and does not require belt support. The July 2015 VA examiner noted that the Veteran's ventral hernia was not postoperative, small and not require a supporting belt and the most recent January 2020 VA examiner had the same opinion. Neither examiner indicated that the Veteran's disability required the use of belt support, and such has similarly not been indicated in the Veteran's VA treatment records. As such, the Veteran's service-connected ventral hernia injury has not been manifested by symptoms that more nearly approximate the criteria for the next higher rating of 20 percent. Specifically, the Veteran's ventral hernia injury has not been manifested by a small hernia not well supported by a belt under ordinary conditions or by post-operative wounds with weakening of abdominal wall, which is indicative of the need for a supporting belt. The Veteran is competent to describe symptoms he experiences. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007). However, as a lay person, he is not competent to provide a medical assessment regarding the relative size of a hernia, the extent to which a hernia is supported by a belt, or the weakening of the abdominal wall. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The competent medical evidence does not reflect, and the Veteran has not suggested, that his service-connected ventral hernia injury is manifested by weakening of the abdominal wall or by the need for a supporting belt. The Board also finds that consideration of other diagnostic criteria for the digestive system is not warranted for the Veteran's service-connected ventral hernia disability as the Veteran's disability is expressly listed in the rating schedule and Diagnostic Code 7339 contemplates the Veteran's symptoms and overall disability picture for this condition. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assigment of a compensable rating of 20 percent for the Veteran's service-connected ventral hernia injury. Therefore, the claim for an increased (or compensable) rating must be denied. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Le, Tai D. The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.