38 C.F.R. § 4.71
Measurement of ankylosis and joint motion
Plates I and II provide a standardized description of ankylosis and joint motion measurement. The anatomical position is considered as 0°, with two major exceptions: (a) Shoulder rotation—arm abducted to 90°, elbow flexed to 90° with the position of the forearm reflecting the midpoint 0° between internal and external rotation of the shoulder; and (b) supination and pronation—the arm next to the body, elbow flexed to 90°, and the forearm in midposition 0° between supination and pronation. Motion of the thumb and fingers should be described by appropriate reference to the joints (See Plate III) whose movement is limited, with a statement as to how near, in centimeters, the tip of the thumb can approximate the fingers, or how near the tips of the fingers can approximate the proximal transverse crease of palm.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 165
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (Vet. App. 1995).
DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (Vet. App. 1995). “45 did not provide for an increased rating for the veteran’s left-shoulder disability because that disability had been rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 , Diagnostic Code (DC) 5201, which “contemplates the functional loss resulting from pain on undertaking motion.”
Payne v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 85 (Vet. App. 1990). “The reason these incongruities between the BVA decision and the record cause this Court concern is that 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 (a), Diagnostic Code 5055, (1989) provides for a 60% disability rating for a knee prosthesis “with chronic residuals consisting of severe painful motion or…”
Tyra K. Mitchell v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (Vet. App. 2011). “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 , Plate II (2011). After initially denying her claim, the VA regional office (RO) granted the appellant’s claim on April 21, 2006, with a disability evaluation of 10%, effective December 28, 2005.”
Daniel J. Murray v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 420 (Vet. App. 2011). “Murray VA benefits for residuals of a left knee injury and assigned a 10% disability rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 a, Diagnostic Code 5257, for recurrent subluxation 2 or lateral instability of the knee, effective October 31,1983.”
Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (Vet. App. 1994). “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 (a), Diagnostic Code (DC) 5051 (1993).”
Smallwood v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 93 (Vet. App. 1997). “See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 (a) DC 5201. The selection of this DC was not arbitrary and capricious because it governs a disability that is “closely analogous” to the appellant’s disability.”
Segundo Mariano v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305 (Vet. App. 2003). “71a, Plate I (picturing, for shoulder, flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation); see also■ 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 (measurement of ankylosis and joint motion); R.”
Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129 (Vet. App. 1992). “Thus, pain on use is as important in rating a low back disability as is limitation of motion (see 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 (1991), DC 5295), since “functional loss caused by either factor should be compensated at the same rate.”
Frederick C. Gazelle v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 461 (Vet. App. 2016). “6 , For example, subsection 1114(lc) provides disability compensation for anatomical loss of or loss of use of one foot or one hand even though the schedular ratings for these disabilities may be as low as 40% and 60% respectively, See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 (a), Diagnostic Codes (DC)…”
Arnesen v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 432 (Vet. App. 1995). “The BVA noted that the veteran’s range of motion was given as 0° to 115° in the November 1990 VA examination report, and that, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 , the “normal range of motion of the leg and knee is from 0 to 140 degrees.”
Sanchez-Benitez v. West, 13 Vet. App. 282 (Vet. App. 1999). “Low Back Claim The Board evaluated the appellant’s low back disability under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 , Diagnostic Code (DC) 5293 (1998) (interver-tebral disc syndrome), and held, in light of the most recent medical examination evidence, that a rating higher than 20% was not warranted.”
Stephen Yonek v. Shinseki, 722 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “See generally 38 C.F.R. § 4.71 & Plate I (illustrating measurements of arm motion).”
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.