38 C.F.R. § 3.344

Stabilization of disability evaluations

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

(a) Examination reports indicating improvement. Rating agencies will handle cases affected by change of medical findings or diagnosis, so as to produce the greatest degree of stability of disability evaluations consistent with the laws and Department of Veterans Affairs regulations governing disability compensation and pension. It is essential that the entire record of examinations and the medical-industrial history be reviewed to ascertain whether the recent examination is full and complete, including all special examinations indicated as a result of general examination and the entire case history. This applies to treatment of intercurrent diseases and exacerbations, including hospital reports, bedside examinations, examinations by designated physicians, and examinations in the absence of, or without taking full advantage of, laboratory facilities and the cooperation of specialists in related lines. Examinations less full and complete than those on which payments were authorized or continued will not be used as a basis of reduction. Ratings on account of diseases subject to temporary or episodic improvement, e.g., manic depressive or other psychotic reaction, epilepsy, psychoneurotic reaction, arteriosclerotic heart disease, bronchial asthma, gastric or duodenal ulcer, many skin diseases, etc., will not be reduced on any one examination, except in those instances where all the evidence of record clearly warrants the conclusion that sustained improvement has been demonstrated. Ratings on account of diseases which become comparatively symptom free (findings absent) after prolonged rest, e.g. residuals of phlebitis, arteriosclerotic heart disease, etc., will not be reduced on examinations reflecting the results of bed rest. Moreover, though material improvement in the physical or mental condition is clearly reflected the rating agency will consider whether the evidence makes it reasonably certain that the improvement will be maintained under the ordinary conditions of life. When syphilis of the central nervous system or alcoholic deterioration is diagnosed following a long prior history of psychosis, psychoneurosis, epilepsy, or the like, it is rarely possible to exclude persistence, in masked form, of the preceding innocently acquired manifestations. Rating boards encountering a change of diagnosis will exercise caution in the determination as to whether a change in diagnosis represents no more than a progression of an earlier diagnosis, an error in prior diagnosis or possibly a disease entity independent of the service-connected disability. When the new diagnosis reflects mental deficiency or personality disorder only, the possibility of only temporary remission of a super-imposed psychiatric disease will be borne in mind.

(b) Doubtful cases. If doubt remains, after according due consideration to all the evidence developed by the several items discussed in paragraph (a) of this section, the rating agency will continue the rating in effect, citing the former diagnosis with the new diagnosis in parentheses, and following the appropriate code there will be added the reference “Rating continued pending reexamination ______ months from this date, § 3.344.” The rating agency will determine on the basis of the facts in each individual case whether 18, 24 or 30 months will be allowed to elapse before the reexamination will be made.

(c) Disabilities which are likely to improve. The provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section apply to ratings which have continued for long periods at the same level (5 years or more). They do not apply to disabilities which have not become stabilized and are likely to improve. Reexaminations disclosing improvement, physical or mental, in these disabilities will warrant reduction in rating.

[26 FR 1586, Feb. 24, 1961; 58 FR 53660, Oct. 18, 1993]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Hanser v. McDonough, 56 F.4th 967 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Hanser v. McDonough, 56 F.4th 967 (Fed. Cir. 2022). · cites it 6× “The Veterans Court, like the Board, determined that Hanser’s rating reduction was not subject to 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 , which sets out procedural require- ments that must be followed before certain longstanding disability ratings are reduced.”
Kitchens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 320 (Vet. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “In the appeal, the appellant’s representative argued: The rating of [January 4, 1990] clearly violated the aforementioned provisions of 38 C.F.R. 3.344, and was therefore erroneous.”
Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413 (Vet. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “After the parties had filed separate motions for summary disposition, the Court on October 30, 1992, denied those motions and ordered the parties to file briefs addressing, inter alia, the applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (1992), regarding the criteria governing reductions in…”
Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (Vet. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “See Peyton, at 286-87, 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (a). Whether or not a disability has improved cannot be determined without reference to prior records detailing the history of the condition.”
Faust v. West, 13 Vet. App. 342 (Vet. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “38 C.F.R. § 3.344 . The appellant asserts that his 100% PTSD rating was protected under 38 C.”
Collier v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 247 (Vet. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (1991) (Stabilization of Disability Evaluations).”
Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (Vet. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (a) (1991) (emphasis added).”
Greyzck v. West, 12 Vet. App. 288 (Vet. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “In August 1993, the appellant alleged that the August 1961 VARO decision was clearly and unmistakably erroneous because the reduction was based on a single examination, which is contrary to the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (1998). The appellant also alleged that he was…”
Lehman v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 339 (Vet. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “*342 Initially, appellant argues that the BVA failed to evaluate his case under 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (1990) (stabilization of disability evaluations).”
Dianne C. Tatum v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 152 (Vet. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “7 We further note that 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (2009), addressing stabilization of disability evaluations, directs rating officials in cases affected by changes in medical findings or diagnoses to effect the “greatest degree of stability of disability evaluations,” and when there is…”
Thomas E. O'Connell v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 89 (Vet. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “343 (a) (2006) (“Total disability ratings, when warranted by the severity of the condition and not granted purely because of hospital, surgical, or home treatment, or individual unemployability will not be reduced, in the absence of clear error, without examination showing…”
Sorakubo v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 120 (Vet. App. 2002). · cites it 7× “The Board noted that although the record showed that the appellant’s rating had been reduced and that the Board did not address 38 C.F.R. § 3.344 (1977) in its decision, a review of the record showed that the regulation did not apply to the facts of the case.”
— 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(c) — 2 cases
12-15 382 (Board of Vet. App. 2016).
09-00 541 (Board of Vet. App. 2013).
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.