38 C.F.R. § 3.327

Reexaminations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General. Reexaminations, including periods of hospital observation, will be requested whenever VA determines there is a need to verify either the continued existence or the current severity of a disability. Generally, reexaminations will be required if it is likely that a disability has improved, or if evidence indicates there has been a material change in a disability or that the current rating may be incorrect. Individuals for whom reexaminations have been authorized and scheduled are required to report for such reexaminations. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section provide general guidelines for requesting reexaminations, but shall not be construed as limiting VA's authority to request reexaminations, or periods of hospital observation, at any time in order to ensure that a disability is accurately rated.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)

(b) Compensation cases—(1) Scheduling reexaminations. Assignment of a prestabilization rating requires reexamination within the second 6 months period following separation from service. Following initial Department of Veterans Affairs examination, or any scheduled future or other examination, reexamination, if in order, will be scheduled within not less than 2 years nor more than 5 years within the judgment of the rating board, unless another time period is elsewhere specified.

(2) No periodic future examinations will be requested. In service-connected cases, no periodic reexamination will be scheduled: (i) When the disability is established as static;

(ii) When the findings and symptoms are shown by examinations scheduled in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section or other examinations and hospital reports to have persisted without material improvement for a period of 5 years or more;

(iii) Where the disability from disease is permanent in character and of such nature that there is no likelihood of improvement;

(iv) In cases of veterans over 55 years of age, except under unusual circumstances;

(v) When the rating is a prescribed scheduled minimum rating; or

(vi) Where a combined disability evaluation would not be affected if the future examination should result in reduced evaluation for one or more conditions.

(c) Pension cases. In nonservice-connected cases in which the permanent total disability has been confirmed by reexamination or by the history of the case, or with obviously static disabilities, further reexaminations will not generally be requested. In other cases further examination will not be requested routinely and will be accomplished only if considered necessary based upon the particular facts of the individual case. In the cases of veterans over 55 years of age, reexamination will be requested only under unusual circumstances.

Cross Reference:

Failure to report for VA examination. See § 3.655.

[26 FR 1585, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 30 FR 11855, Sept. 16, 1965; 36 FR 14467, Aug. 6, 1971; 55 FR 49521, Nov. 29, 1990; 60 FR 27409, May 24, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Frank A. Glover, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 185 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Frank A. Glover, Claimant-Appellant v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 185 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1999). · cites it 10× “The court interpreted the regulation governing reexaminations, 38 C.F.R. § 3.327 , 2 *1331 to require the veteran to present evidence of a material change in his or her service-connected condition in order to trigger the VA’s obligation to provide a reexamination.”
Brian J. Hart v. Gordon H. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (Vet. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 3.327 (a) (2007); see 38 U.S.”
Collier v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 247 (Vet. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “Both the old and the current versions of the regulation are couched in terms that reveal that the nature of the regulation is to be a guide for the Secretary’s subordinates in their use of the Department’s medical resources.”
Buffington v. McDonough, 7 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “38 C.F.R. § 3.327 states that the VA may require reexaminations whenever it “determines there is a need to verify either the continued existence or the current severity of a disability.”
Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (Vet. App. 1994). “” 38 C.F.R. § 3.327 (a) (1993). In assessing the current severity of a disability, “reexaminations will be required if .”
Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (Vet. App. 1997). “at 381 (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 3.327 (a)). In this particular ease, the appellant alleged that his hearing had worsened and that he was having trouble wearing his hearing aid because of an infection.”
Norris v. West, 12 Vet. App. 413 (Vet. App. 1999). “, 38 C.F.R. § 3.327 (a) (1998) (requiring reexamination by VA if a disability has improved or a material change in disability has occurred).”
Tietjen v. United States Vet.'s Admin., 692 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Ariz. 1988). · cites it 4× “First, plaintiff alleges that because of the 1975 letter, which stated that his condition had become static, he could not be reexamined.”
Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 221 (Vet. App. 1991). “The VA’s failure to have conducted an examination by a specialist as recommended by the VA examining physician also had a detrimental effect upon the adjudication of the veteran’s claim.”
William H. Tietjen v. United States Vets. Admin. Thomas K. Turnage, Adm'r of Vet.'s Affairs, 884 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1989). “The three regulations in question are 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.327 (b)(2) (no reexamination of disability recipient whose condition is deemed to be “static”), 3.”
Cousino v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 536 (Vet. App. 1991). “Because of the circumstances presented here, the Court directs that this examination be performed by a physician or physicians who have not previously examined appellant and that such examiners be provided with all VA medical records relating to appellant’s PTSD.”
Hayes v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 353 (Vet. App. 1993). “” 38 C.F.R. § 3.327 (b)(1) (emphasis added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.