With any form of arthritis, painful motion is an important factor of disability, the facial expression, wincing, etc., on pressure or manipulation, should be carefully noted and definitely related to affected joints. Muscle spasm will greatly assist the identification. Sciatic neuritis is not uncommonly caused by arthritis of the spine. The intent of the schedule is to recognize painful motion with joint or periarticular pathology as productive of disability. It is the intention to recognize actually painful, unstable, or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, as entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. Crepitation either in the soft tissues such as the tendons or ligaments, or crepitation within the joint structures should be noted carefully as points of contact which are diseased. Flexion elicits such manifestations. The joints involved should be tested for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and nonweight-bearing and, if possible, with the range of the opposite undamaged joint.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
306
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case:
Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (Vet. App. 2016).
Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (Vet. App. 2016).
· cites it 11× “On April 15, 2015, this matter was referred to a panel of the Court to determine the proper interpretation of the final sen-fence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 . On June 1, 2015, the proceedings in this matter were stayed, pending the resolution of Petitti v.”
Jeffrey T. Petitti v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 415 (Vet. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “71a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 5002, as read in light of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 . As explained below, the Court concludes that objective evidence of painful motion is required under DC 5002.”
Tyra K. Mitchell v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (Vet. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “at 2 (citing 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 ), 3, 8. Otherwise, the Secretary contends, painful motion, without loss of range of motion, does not equate to a functional loss, and he categorically rejects the appellant’s assertion that pain throughout the range of motion, without any…”
Russell W. Burton v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (Vet. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “59, and painful motion generally, or otherwise assign a minimum compensable rating for his actually painful joints, see 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2011) (“It is the intention to recognize actually painful, unstable, or malaligned joints, due to *3 healed injury, as entitled to at least…”
Crystal D. Southall-Norman v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 346 (Vet. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “2 This matter was referred to a panel of the Court, with oral argument, to address whether the Board is required to consider and apply 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 when evaluating a musculoskeletal disability under a diagnostic code (DC) that is not predicated on range of motion…”
Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“59 , which governs the evaluation of painful motion, requires evidence observed during range-of-motion testing, and rejecting the Secretary's argument that "the mere presence of joint pain is not sufficient."). We also reject the Secretary's suggestion that pain must be tied to…”
William R. Sowers v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 472 (Vet. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “Sowers was not entitled to a compensable rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (2015) because the relevant diagnostic code (DC) he is rated under does not have a compensable rating.”
Frazier v. McDonough, 66 F.4th 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
· cites it 5× “He contended that he was entitled to a compensable rating of 10 percent under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 . That regulation provides, in pertinent part: The intent of the schedule is to recognize painful motion with joint or periarticular pathology as productive of disability.”
Mary Vilfranc v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 357 (Vet. App. 2017).
· cites it 5× “Vilfranc shifted the focus of her argument from the limitation of motion measurement of Diagnostic Code 9905 to 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 , which she contends operates as a "bridge" to require VA to award her separate disability ratings under Diagnostic Code 9905 for each painful…”
Hicks v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 417 (Vet. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “DC 5003 is to be read in conjunction with 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (1994), which provides as follows: With any form of arthritis, painful motion is an important factor of disability, the facial expression, wincing, etc.”
Siples v. Collins, 127 F.4th 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
· cites it 6× “1 (2011) (Burton), which deferred to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ interpreta- tion of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 as not limited to cases of arthritis.”
Cantrell v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 382 (Vet. App. 2017).
“Moreover, no other VA disability compensation regulation mentions employment in a protected environment, much less defines it, and the regulations surrounding § 4.16 in the Code of Federal Regulations do nothing to elucidate the term’s meaning.”
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.