Citation Nr: 25005113 Decision Date: 04/15/25 Archive Date: 04/15/25 DOCKET NO. 16-27 594 DATE: April 15, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to a rating higher than 30 percent from August 1, 2016, for the service-connected post-operative right thumb disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1985 to September 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This issue was previously remanded by the Board in September 2024 and have since been returned for further adjudication. Right Thumb Pursuant to the September 2024 Board remand, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for hand and finger disabilities in October 2024. An addendum opinion regarding the functional equivalent of ankylosis of the right thumb was also obtained in December 2024. Subsequently, VA granted a 30 percent rating for the Veteran's right thumb disability from August 1, 2016, the entirety of the appeal period. As this is not a full grant of the Veteran's claim, the matter remains on appeal before the Board. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 39 (1993). The Veteran is rated 30 percent from August 1, 2016, for amputation of the right thumb, by analogy. A higher evaluation of 40 percent is not warranted for the dominant thumb unless the evidence shows either of the following: amputation of the thumb with metacarpal resection; unfavorable ankylosis of the thumb and any finger; favorable ankylosis of the thumb and any two fingers. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes, 5152, 5219, and 5222. The Board notes that the Veteran's right thumb was previously rated under Diagnostic Code 5224 for unfavorable ankylosis. However, the October 2024 VA examiner did not specify whether the Veteran's thumb had favorable or unfavorable ankylosis. Furthermore, the Veteran's medical records reveal complaints of inability to bend his index finger at the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint. See May 2017 and March 2019 VA treatment notes. In Chavis v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 1 (2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that the Board must consider whether the Veteran's symptoms "resulted in the functional equivalent of ankylosis." Here, the record raises the question of whether there is the functional equivalent of right index finger ankylosis, for rating purposes under Diagnostic Code 5219 (unfavorable ankylosis of the thumb and any finger). Considering the criteria of Diagnostic Code 5219, the Board must remand for an addendum opinion, or if necessary, a new VA examination for the hand and fingers, to determine whether (1) the Veteran's right thumb ankylosis is unfavorable or favorable, and (2) whether his right index finger resulted in the functional equivalent of ankylosis, consistent with Chavis. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: Obtain an addendum opinion, or if deemed necessary, a new VA examination, to assess the severity of the Veteran's right thumb condition. A copy of the Veteran's claims file, including this REMAND, must be made available to, and reviewed by, the examiner. The examiner must then address the following: (a.) From August 1, 2016, and at any period thereafter, determine whether the Veteran's right thumb ankylosis was unfavorable or favorable. (b.) From August 1, 2016, and at any period thereafter, determine whether the Veteran's right index finger resulted in the functional equivalent of ankylosis. The examiner must specifically address the May 2017 and March 2019 VA treatment reports that the Veteran was unable to bend his index finger at the MCP joint. (c.) If the examiner determines that the Veteran's index finger resulted in the functional equivalent of ankylosis, the examiner must then determine whether the index finger more closely approximates unfavorable or favorable ankylosis. Why or why not? SHAUN S. SPERANZA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Bobb, Jessica R. 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.