This 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 percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. For the application of this schedule, accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations are required, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition. Over a period of many years, a veteran's disability claim may require reratings in accordance with changes in laws, medical knowledge and his or her physical or mental condition. It is thus essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history.
[41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976]
Notes of Decisions
Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (Vet. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “§ 5107 (a) (now § 5103A)" [by] not provid[ing] him with an adequate medical examination and that both the November 1999 and November 2000 medical-examination reports lack any information required under 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2005) about the limitations of activity imposed by his PTSD;…”
Dwayne A. Moore v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 211 (Vet. App. 2007).
· cites it 12× “The Secretary is required to provide a medical opinion when such an opinion is necessary to make a decision on the claim.”
Marvin O. Johnson v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 237 (Vet. App. 2013).
· cites it 12× “" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2012). Once a particular disability has been found to be service connected, VA applies the criteria established in diagnostic codes (DCs) contained in the rating schedule to assign a disability rating that "represent[s] as far as can practicably be determined…”
Miguel A. Camacho v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 360 (Vet. App. 2007).
· cites it 6× “at 20444; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2006) ("For the application of this [rating] schedule, accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations are required, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition.”
Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “" 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (emphases added); cf. Davis v.”
Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (Vet. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “” See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (1994) (level of compensation paid under chapter 11 is determined according to “the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from [all types of] diseases and injuries [encountered as a result of or incident to military service] and their residual…”
Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 3× “” Congress never defines the term “disability” in the statute, and the VA claims its interpretation of “disability” to mean “impairment in earning capacity” under 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 is entitled to Chevron deference.”
Birdeye Middleton v. Shinseki, 727 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 . The code reads as follows: 7913 Diabetes mellitus Requiring more than one daily injection of insulin, 100 [percent] restricted diet, and regulation of activities (avoidance of strenuous occupational and recreational activities) with episodes of ketoacidosis…”
James P. Barr v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (Vet. App. 2007).
“563, 568-69 (2007); 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2006). Further, we note that the VA examiner did not indicate whether he considered Mr.”
Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (Vet. App. 2017).
“Compare 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2016), with 38 C.F.R. § 3.”
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.