Ulysses Copeland v. Robert A. McDonald
2015 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 835
| Vet. App. | 2015Background
- Copeland, a veteran, appeals a Board decision denying disability rating >50% for bilateral pes planus with hallux valgus.
- The 50% rating was granted effective October 30, 2013, based on a 2010 QTC examination and later development.
- Prior ratings started as 10% (1966) then 30% (2008) before the 2013 grant of 50%.
- The Board considered DC 5276 (pes planus), DC 5278 (clawed foot), DC 5280 (hallux valgus), and DC 5284 (foot injuries, other).
- The Board found hallux valgus slight to moderate and not warranting a separate DC 5280 rating, and found no basis for a higher rating under DC 5284 or extraschedular referral.
- The Court affirmed the Board’s decision; a dissent argued DC 5284 directly applies and could yield a higher combined rating.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DC 5284 can rate the listed foot conditions by analogy | Copeland argues DC 5284 applies to his combined conditions. | Secretary contends listed conditions must be rated under their specific DCs, rating by analogy is improper. | No; DC 5284 cannot apply to listed conditions rated under specific DCs. |
| Whether the Board properly rated under DC 5276 and DC 5280 rather than DC 5284 | Copeland seeks separate 30% ratings under DC 5284 for each condition. | Secretary maintains proper ratings were under DC 5276 and DC 5280, with no need for DC 5284. | Yes; Board correctly rated under DC 5276 and DC 5280, with no higher rating or separate DC 5284 warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suttmann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 127 (1993) (rating by analogy only for unlisted conditions)
- Tropf v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 317 (2006) (hyphenated ratings; rating framework for multiple manifestations)
- Bethea v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 252 (1992) (binding nature of panel decisions; schedule context)
- Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 259 (1994) (combine separate ratings when injuries have new manifestations)
- Wingard v. McDonald, 779 F.3d 1354 (Fed.Cir. 2015) (review limited to interpretation of the rating schedule)
- Medrano v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 165 (2007) (prejudicial error; favorable ratings preserved)