38 C.F.R. § 4.21
Application of rating schedule
In view of the number of atypical instances it is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified. Findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom, and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will, however, be expected in all instances.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 179
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1989–2023 · leading case: Birdeye Middleton v. Shinseki, 727 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Birdeye Middleton v. Shinseki, 727 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “Middleton also argues that the Veterans Court’s hold- ing that satisfaction of the requiring insulin criterion is a necessary finding for a 40% rating conflicts with 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 , which provides that “it is not expected .”
Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129 (Vet. App. 1992). “And 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (1991) provides: “In view of the number of atypical instances[,] it is not expected .”
Miguel A. Camacho v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 360 (Vet. App. 2007). “8 Finally, the appellant's argument that, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 , he "is not required to demonstrate that he meets all criteria for the next higher rating" lacks merit.”
William R. Sowers v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 472 (Vet. App. 2016). “” 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2015) (“In view of the number of atypical instances it is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified.”
Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532 (Vet. App. 1993). “Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (1992), “Findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom, and above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function will .”
Bruce W. Pierce v. Anthony J. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 440 (Vet. App. 2004). “7 (higher possible evaluation applies “if disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating[; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned”), and 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2002) (all the elements specified in a disability grade need not necessarily be found…”
Johnson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 7 (Vet. App. 1996). “Fourth, the BVA must address *11 whether the criteria for a 20% rating are alternative or cumulative and apply 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.21 (“it is not expected, especially ■with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified”) and 4.”
Dianne C. Tatum v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 152 (Vet. App. 2009). “” Such a conclusion would also eviscerate the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2009), a regulation which explains that “it is not expected .”
Slaughter v. McDonough, 29 F.4th 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2022). “Slaughter’s attorney identi- fied 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 as providing for treating non-service- connected nerve injuries as though they were service-con- nected.”
Jose v. Kuppamala v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 447 (Vet. App. 2015). “38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2015) (rating regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the rating schedule; coordination of rating with impairment of function expected in all instances).”
Frazier v. McDonough, 66 F.4th 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2023). “In 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 , the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has made clear that a veteran’s disability rating should be coordinated with the veteran’s “impairment of function .”
Dyess v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 448 (Vet. App. 1991). “In reaching a decision on readjudication, the BVA should be mindful of the injunction in 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (1990) that “it is not expected that .”
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.