Loss of use of a hand or a foot, for the purpose of special monthly compensation, will be held to exist when no effective function remains other than that which would be equally well served by an amputation stump at the site of election below elbow or knee with use of a suitable prosthetic appliance. The determination will be made on the basis of the actual remaining function of the hand or foot, whether the acts of grasping, manipulation, etc., in the case of the hand, or of balance and propulsion, etc., in the case of the foot, could be accomplished equally well by an amputation stump with prosthesis.
(a) Extremely unfavorable complete ankylosis of the knee, or complete ankylosis of 2 major joints of an extremity, or shortening of the lower extremity of 3
1/2 inches (8.9 cms.) or more, will be taken as loss of use of the hand or foot involved.
(b) Complete paralysis of the external popliteal nerve (common peroneal) and consequent, footdrop, accompanied by characteristic organic changes including trophic and circulatory disturbances and other concomitants confirmatory of complete paralysis of this nerve, will be taken as loss of use of the foot.
[29 FR 6718, May 22, 1964, as amended at 43 FR 45349, Oct. 2, 1978]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 1994–2020 · leading case:
Dinsay v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 79 (Vet. App. 1996).
Dinsay v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 79 (Vet. App. 1996).
“” 38 C.F.R. § 4.63 (1995). The Board determined that the veteran’s disability did not satisfy this criterion, finding specifically: “Although the medical evidence reveals some weakening of the muscles of the right hand and fingers, probably from diminished use, there is no…”
Bierman v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 125 (Vet. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “at 342; see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.63 (1993). The Chairman’s memorandum articulated a single Board policy for evaluating future claims of IDS with secondary foot drop: The Schedule for Rating Disabilities provides a specific [DC] for the evaluation of [IDS].”
14-20 996 (Board of Vet. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.63 (2017). The determination will be made on the basis of the actual remaining function, whether through acts such as grasping and manipulation for the hand, or balance and propulsion for the foot, and whether these acts could be accomplished equally well…”
Vetter v. McDonald, 599 F. App'x 386 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
· cites it 2× “16 (b), and 2) a disability rating based on the loss of use of his dominant hand under 38 C.F.R. § 4.63 , which would further entitle Mr.”
10-16 363 (Board of Vet. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 4.63 . Examples under 38 C.F.”
08-23 495 (Board of Vet. App. 2016).
“38 C.F.R. § 4.63 (2015). The September 2013, examiner specifically found that the ankle disability was not of this severity.”
12-25 823 (Board of Vet. App. 2017).
“38 C.F.R. §§ 4.63 , 4.71a. The Board accepts that the Veteran is competent to report on his observable symptomatology.”
11-15 198 (Board of Vet. App. 2016).
“See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.63 (2015). Significantly, the Veteran's claim for increased ratings for lower extremity peripheral neuropathy includes consideration of substantially similar criteria under the applicable Diagnostic Codes of 38 C.”
181105-1107 (Board of Vet. App. 2020).
“38 C.F.R. § 4.63 . As discussed above, the Veteran met these criteria based on the findings of the January 14, 2017 private examination, and therefore SMC is warranted from that date.”
10-31 016 (Board of Vet. App. 2014).
“The effect of the loss of use of hand is detailed in 38 C.F.R. § 4.63 (2013); see also 38 C.F.”
13-28 257 (Board of Vet. App. 2015).
“38 C.F.R. § 4.63 . In March 2015, the Veteran underwent a Diabetic Sensory-Motor Peripheral Neuropathy VA examination, which included evaluation of his upper extremities.”
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.