38 C.F.R. § 4.13
Effect of change of diagnosis
The repercussion upon a current rating of service connection when change is made of a previously assigned diagnosis or etiology must be kept in mind. The aim should be the reconciliation and continuance of the diagnosis or etiology upon which service connection for the disability had been granted. The relevant principle enunciated in § 4.125, entitled “Diagnosis of mental disorders,” should have careful attention in this connection. When any change in evaluation is to be made, the rating agency should assure itself that there has been an actual change in the conditions, for better or worse, and not merely a difference in thoroughness of the examination or in use of descriptive terms. This will not, of course, preclude the correction of erroneous ratings, nor will it preclude assignment of a rating in conformity with § 4.7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: William F. Allen, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 237 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
William F. Allen, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 237 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.13 (1996); 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 (1996) (setting forth criteria for 100 percent rating); Johnson v.”
George T. Richardson v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 64 (Vet. App. 2006). “38 C.F.R. § 4.13 (2005) (codified version of Paragraph 13).”
Dianne C. Tatum v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 152 (Vet. App. 2009). “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.13 (2009) (when a previously assigned diagnosis has changed, “[t]he aim should be the reconciliation and continuance of the diagnosis or etiology upon which service connection for the disability has been granted”).”
Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413 (Vet. App. 1993). “Furthermore, 38 C.F.R. § 4.13 (1992) provides: “When any change in evaluation is to be made, the rating agency should assure itself that there has been an actual change in the condition, for better or worse, and not merely a difference in the *421 thoroughness of the examination…”
Baker v. West, 11 Vet. App. 163 (Vet. App. 1998). “52, 695 (1996) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.13 , 4.16, 4.125-4.132 (1996)).”
Dudnick v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 79 (Vet. App. 1997). “52, 695 (1996) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.13 , 4.16, 4.125-4.132 (1996)).”
Jones v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 396 (Vet. App. 1992). “2 (1991) (examination reports containing insufficient detail must be returned as inadequate for rating purposes); 38 C.F.R. § 4.13 (1991) (in situation of changed diagnosis, rating board’s “aim should be the reconciliation and continuance of the diagnosis or etiology upon which…”
16-16 234 (Board of Vet. App. 2016). “The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has interpreted the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.13 to require that in any rating reduction case, it must be ascertained, based upon a review of the entire recorded history of the condition, whether the evidence reflects an…”
Johnson v. Collins (Fed. Cir. 2026). “Johnson argues that the Veterans Court upheld the reduction of his ankle-disability ratings based on an in- correct interpretation of the term “actual change” in 38 C.F.R. § 4.13 . That regulation requires the Secretary to show “an actual change in the [veteran’s] conditions,…”
12-14 834 (Board of Vet. App. 2014). “38 C.F.R. § 4.13 provides as follows: The repercussion upon a current rating of service connection when change is made of a previously assigned diagnosis or etiology must be kept in mind.”
181008-541 (Board of Vet. App. 2019). “38 C.F.R. § 4.13 . Finally, it must be considered that the basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body, to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment.”
200421-82758 (Board of Vet. App. 2020). “Furthermore, 38 C.F.R. § 4.13 provides that the rating agency should assure itself that there has been an actual change in the condition, for better or worse, and not merely a difference in the thoroughness of the examination or in use of descriptive terms.”
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.