Thomas I. Lyles, Jr. v. David J. Shulkin, 16-0994

Background

Veteran Thomas I. Lyles, Jr. has a service‑connected left knee disability (post‑meniscectomies and ACL repair) and has long received a 30% rating under DC 5257 (lateral instability) and a 30% rating under DC 5261 (limitation of extension) for later periods.
He sought a separate meniscal evaluation under DC 5258 or DC 5259 for symptoms including locking, popping, grinding, pain, and swelling; the Board denied a separate meniscal rating as impermissible pyramiding.
The Board concluded DC 5257 and DC 5261 already “encompassed” the meniscal manifestations; it relied on exam reports that said flare‑up functional loss could not be quantified without speculation.
The Court panel reviewed whether rating under DC 5257 or 5261 precludes, as a matter of law, a separate meniscal rating under DC 5258/5259, and whether the Board properly found the meniscal manifestations already compensated (including its DeLuca analysis).
The Court reversed the Board’s finding that DC 5257 compensated pain and swelling related to the meniscus, set aside the denial of a separate meniscal evaluation, and remanded for further development and readjudication.

Issues

Issue	Lyles' Argument	Secretary's Argument	Held
Whether evaluation under DC 5257 or 5261 precludes, as a matter of law, a separate meniscal rating under DC 5258/5259	DCs 5257 and 5261 cover only instability and limitation of extension; they do not as a matter of law bar a separate meniscal rating	Meniscal DCs are broad and necessarily encompass instability and limitation of motion, so separate ratings would pyramid	Court: No. The text and history of §4.71a do not bar separate evaluation; lack of an express prohibition allows separate ratings unless specific pyramiding on the facts is shown.
Whether the Board correctly found DC 5257 (lateral instability) already compensated meniscal symptoms like pain and swelling	Those symptoms are distinct meniscal manifestations and are not covered by DC 5257’s plain language	Board concluded instability rating encompassed pain, swelling, and giving way	Court: Reversed. DC 5257 compensates recurrent subluxation/lateral instability only; Board erred to read pain and swelling into DC 5257.
Whether the meniscal manifestations were already compensated by DC 5261 via DeLuca (i.e., elevation for functional loss due to pain, swelling, locking, etc.)	These manifestations could be considered under DC 5261 via DeLuca, but the Board did not actually find an elevation—so they remain uncompensated and eligible for separate consideration	Secretary argued Board properly considered DeLuca and exam findings show no quantifiable additional loss; thus separate rating would pyramid	Court: Remand. The Board’s DeLuca analysis was inadequate: it failed to analyze all relevant manifestations (swelling, popping, locking, grinding) and relied on examiners’ statements that impermissibly declined to quantify flare‑up loss. Further development required.
Adequacy of VA examinations and whether remand is required	Examinations did not elicit functional loss during flare‑ups or repeated use; veteran’s lay statements support additional limitation	Secretary relied on examiner statements that further opinion would be speculative	Court: Remanded. Examiners’ refusal to provide DeLuca‑type estimates (or failure to document basis) mirrors deficiencies in Sharp; Board must obtain adequate development/examination addressing flare‑ups and functional loss.

Key Cases Cited

Delisle v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (DC 5257 is limited by its plain language to recurrent subluxation or lateral instability)
Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (explaining combination of separate evaluations under §4.25 and the prohibition on pyramiding)
Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (a veteran may not be compensated more than once for the same disability)
Yonek v. Shinseki, 722 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (text and structure of DCs govern separate‑rating questions)
Bates v. United States, 522 U.S. 23 (1997) (courts resist reading terms into statutes or regulations that do not appear on their face)