Different examiners, at different times, will not describe the same disability in the same language. Features of the disability which must have persisted unchanged may be overlooked or a change for the better or worse may not be accurately appreciated or described. It is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination in the light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. Each disability must be considered from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. If a diagnosis is not supported by the findings on the examination report or if the report does not contain sufficient detail, it is incumbent upon the rating board to return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes.
[41 FR 11292, Mar. 18, 1976]
Notes of Decisions
Rick K. Kahana v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (Vet. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2010) ("If a diagnosis is not supported by the findings on the examination report or if the report does not contain sufficient detail, it is incumbent upon the rating board to return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes.”
Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (Vet. App. 1991).
· cites it 5× “See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2 , 3.344(a). These concerns are especially strong in a ratings reduction case such as this.”
James E. Savage v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 259 (Vet. App. 2011).
· cites it 10× “He asserts that the Board violated 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2 and 19.9. Second, Mr. Savage argues that the Board’s reasons or bases for rejecting the private examinations and VA progress notes are inadequate because the Board failed to explain why clarification was not warranted.”
Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
· cites it 3× “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 ; see also J.A. 113—16. Finally, the Veterans Court was authorized to review the Board’s factual findings to determine whether they were plausible and not clearly erroneous.”
Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (Vet. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “" Further, 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2005) requires that if an examination report used for rating a service-connected disability does not contain sufficient detail, "it is incumbent upon the rating board to return the report as inadequate for evaluation purposes.”
Billy D. McCarroll v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 267 (Vet. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “"); 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2016) (noting that it is crucial for the rating to "accurately reflect the elements of disability present"); 38 C.”
Clyde McKinney, Jr. v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 15 (Vet. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “" 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2015). 6 entitled to a presumption that he or she was in sound condition upon entry into service "except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted" during an entrance examination.”
Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1 (Vet. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2 (“[i]f a[ medical examination] .”
Durden v. Colvin, 191 F. Supp. 3d 429 (M.D. Penn. 2016).
“See also 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2 , 4.6 (how an adjudicator evaluates the evidence); Culver v.”
Shoffner v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 208 (Vet. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “He argues that this action is required pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 , which he asserts obliged the RO to return the doctors' reports for clarification.”
Joe L. Monzingo v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97 (Vet. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “VA is required, however, to return VA examination reports for clarification where the report contains insufficient detail or where the diagnosis is not supported by the report's findings, 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (2012), and to return private examinations under more limited…”
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.