09-17 958, 09-17 958

Veteran served 1980–1980 and 1982–1991; service‑connected right foot chronic plantar fasciitis with calcaneal spur rated 10% since 1997 (temporary increases noted earlier).
Claim for increased rating on appeal from August 2006 RO decision; NODs and SOCs filed; Board hearings and remands occurred; VA examinations in 2007, 2010, 2015 considered.
Medical evidence shows intermittent but documented pain, tenderness, occasional swelling, flare‑ups, and radiographic calcaneal spur; several treatments (injections, ESWT, orthotics); periods of asymptomatic findings in records.
VA exam August 19, 2015 documented extreme plantar tenderness, pain with weight‑bearing, interference with standing, lack of endurance, and flare‑ups impacting function.
Board applied Diagnostic Code 5284 (other foot injuries by analogy) and staged ratings per Hart, finding the preponderance of evidence supports 10% before Aug 19, 2015 and 20% beginning Aug 19, 2015.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rating >10% is warranted for period before Aug 19, 2015	Veteran: pain, functional limitation, flare‑ups justify higher rating	VA: objective records show intermittent/asymptomatic periods and only moderate findings supporting 10%	Denied — preponderance shows moderate injury; 10% affirmed
Whether rating >20% is warranted from Aug 19, 2015 onward	Veteran: August 2015 symptoms (extreme tenderness, interference with standing) warrant >20%	VA: evidence still does not show severe residuals required for 30%	Granted 20% effective Aug 19, 2015; 30% denied
Whether extraschedular evaluation or TDIU referral is warranted	Veteran: collective impact and functional limits may justify extraschedular/TDIU	VA: schedule contemplates symptoms; no exceptional factors or unemployability shown	Denied — no extraschedular referral; no TDIU warranted

DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995) (higher rating may be based on greater limitation from pain on use)
Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) (staged ratings appropriate when distinct time periods show different severity)
Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111 (2008) (three‑step extraschedular referral inquiry)
Johnson v. McDonald, 762 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (consideration of extraschedular referral for collective impact of multiple disabilities)
Yancy v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 484 (2016) (Board need only address extraschedular referral for collective impact when raised or reasonably raised)
Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) (claim for higher evaluation may include claim for TDIU when evidence of unemployability is present)
Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994) (veteran competent to report symptoms)
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990) (benefit‑of‑the‑doubt rule)
Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (requirement that adjudicatory duty on remand be substantially complied with)
Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (VCAA notice and procedural considerations)