38 C.F.R. § 4.31
Zero percent evaluations
In every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244 (Vet. App. 2002).
Sears v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 244 (Vet. App. 2002). “In 1993, 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 was amended to provide, just as it does today ( 38 C.”
Lillie M. Wingard v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 334 (Vet. App. 2013). “114 , DC 7338 (1989 & 2013) (providing for a 0% evaluation for hernia conditions that are “[n]ot operated, but remediable,” or “[sjmall, reducible, or without true hernia protrusion”); 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 (2013) (providing for a 0% evaluation “where the schedule does not provide a…”
Antonio Pacheco v. Sloan D. Gibson, 27 Vet. App. 21 (Vet. App. 2014). “28,808 , 28,808-09 (May 17, 1993) (emphasis added) (proposing to amend 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 ). The Secretary more recently indicated that, historically, VA would grant service connection and assign a noncompensable evaluation but "consider[]" or construe such a claim to be…”
Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (Vet. App. 1992). “(38 CFR 4.31) R. at 147. In response to the SOC, the veteran filed his substantive appeal to the BVA on VA Form 1-9 which was received by the VA on November 15, 1990.”
Brown v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 421 (Vet. App. 2002). “He argues that he should have been assigned a 10% rating under DC 7502 (chronic nephritis) (R.”
Zang v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 246 (Vet. App. 1995). “28,808 (1993) (proposed rule to amend 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 to eliminate perceived discrepancy between VA practice and regulation with respect to assignments of zero percent evaluation where not specifically authorized, as discussed in Rabideau v.”
Meeks v. West, 13 Vet. App. 40 (Vet. App. 1999). “Thus, 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 (1998) (entitled "Zero percent evaluations”) may constitute a violation of that section 1155 prohibition unless that regulation was prescribed pursuant to another authority, and it lists none.”
Sorakubo v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 120 (Vet. App. 2002). “The VARO further explained that the rating schedule did not provide a compensable evaluation for fracture of the sternum where the symptomatology was of a minimal degree, citing 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 ; Diagnostic Code (DC) 5299.”
Russell v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 9 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “Further, 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 mandates the use of a 0% disability rating “when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met.”
Horvath v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 240 (Vet. App. 1992). “104 , Diagnostic Code 7122 (1991), or, in the alternative, appellant is to be awarded a zero percent rating pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 (1991).”
Steelman v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 596 (Vet. App. 1992). “See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.31 , 3.357(a), 4.118, DC 7804, DC 7805.”
05-34 928 (Board of Vet. App. 2016). “38 C.F.R. § 4.31 . Microalbuminuria The Veteran's microalbuminuria is presently rated as noncompensable and therefore included as part of the diabetic process.”
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.