My client challenged the Board’s denial of ratings above 10 percent for carpal tunnel syndrome in each hand. The record contained evidence that deserved more than a brief label. The appeal focused both on what the Board had overlooked and on how it explained the degree of impairment.
Listening to the client and following the treatment record
I listened to my client and reviewed the private treatment records, nerve testing, and VA examination findings. The private records described nerve-study results, treatment with injections, use of wrist braces, and decreased grip strength. The VA report described pain, tingling, weakness, numbness, and difficulty gripping items for prolonged periods.
I compared those findings with the Board’s analysis. The decision did not adequately address important portions of the private and VA evidence. That omission mattered because the disputed issue was the level of impairment, and the records described both symptoms and their practical effects.
The legal memo addressed evidence and rating language
I prepared a legal memo explaining the reasons-or-bases problems. One part addressed the unexamined evidence. Another examined the Board’s use of terms such as “moderate” and “severe.” The problem was not simply that the rating schedule uses qualitative language; it was whether the Board explained its standard well enough for the veteran and Court to understand its application.
The joint motion also addressed relevant guidance in VA’s adjudication manual. The Board is not automatically bound by that manual, but the motion identified why relevant provisions required consideration in this case. I kept the distinction clear: manual guidance and medical descriptions inform the analysis without automatically dictating a particular rating.
What we won at the Court
I secured a partial remand of the bilateral carpal-tunnel rating issues. The proposed corrective action included addressing the overlooked evidence, adequately explaining the subjective criteria, and considering the relevant manual provisions.
The tinnitus-rating issue was not challenged and was not part of the remand victory. Nor did the Court assign a new percentage for either hand. The result required another legally adequate evaluation of the carpal-tunnel claims.
The broader lesson
Disability-rating appeals often turn on the connection between evidence and explanation. A record can contain significant findings without the Board showing how it weighed them. By listening to the client, tracing the treatment evidence, and organizing the legal issues in a memo, I was able to challenge both the omission and the unexplained standard behind the denial.
Discuss your Board appeal
I represent veterans and their families at the CAVC. Learn about my appellate representation or request a free Board decision review.
For more about this issue, read our related appeal guide. The ordinary Court filing deadline is 120 days after notice of the Board decision is issued. Contacting a law firm does not extend that deadline.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. A remand requires further proceedings and does not itself award benefits.
