Spicer v. Shinseki
752 F.3d 1367
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Stephen R. Spicer (substituted by son Donald after Spicer's death) served in the Navy and suffered a left little finger DIP joint injury that fused after surgery; VA later diagnosed degenerative arthritis of that DIP joint.
- VA regional office denied a compensable rating for the left little finger; the Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied an increased-rating claim under DC 5227 and 5230.
- Spicer argued on appeal to the Veterans Court that the Board failed to consider Diagnostic Code (DC) 5003 (degenerative arthritis) and that a single affected minor joint (a DIP) can qualify as a “group of minor joints” for a 10% rating.
- The Veterans Court affirmed, holding a DIP joint is not a major joint or a minor-joint group for rating arthritis and that DC 5003 therefore did not apply.
- This appeal asks whether DC 5003 permits a 10% rating when only one minor joint (e.g., a single DIP) has limitation of motion, or whether § 4.45(f) requires “multiple involvements” of minor joints to form a ratable group.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC 5003 permits a 10% rating for limitation of motion in a single minor joint (a single DIP) | Spicer: a single affected minor joint constitutes a "group of minor joints" for DC 5003; § 4.45(f) does not mandate multiple joints | Secretary: § 4.45(f) defines a "group of minor joints" as "multiple involvements," requiring more than one minor joint | Court held DC 5003 requires limitation of motion in two or more minor joints (i.e., multiple involvements) to qualify for the 10% rating |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockheed Corp. v. Widnall, 113 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (interpret regulation by plain language and common meaning)
- Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115 (1994) (interpretive doubt resolved in veteran's favor where ambiguity exists)
- Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (appellate review appropriate for interpretation of VA rating regulations)
- Nielson v. Shinseki, 607 F.3d 802 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Brown canon applied only when ambiguity persists after other interpretive tools)
- Johnson v. Derwinski, 949 F.2d 394 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (limits on reviewing factual determinations or law-applied-to-fact under veterans-review statutes)