![]() Since the condition isn't specifically listed in 38 CFR Part 4 this isn't a clear and unmistakable error or anything like that heck, technically (there I go again) it really isn't even an error when you get right down to it because it's a legitimate analogous rating. I can't say for sure that this is what the Rating VSR was thinking, but since I did it myself on a few occasions and I've seen others do it, that is my best guess. Like I said this isn't technically correct, but they do it rather than assign separate 0 percent evaluations for each foot. More than likely he/she determined that neither foot warranted a compensable evaluation, but at the same time felt like together they should get something therefore, he/she rated both feet analogous to one of the foot conditions that can be rated as a bilateral disability such as metatarsalgia, weak foot, or pes planus. ![]() Having said that, here is what I suspect the Rating VSR did. By that I mean that each foot should be evaluated separately rather than both feet as a single disability. ![]() ![]() Technically speaking (as if I could speak "technically" ) plantar fasciitis should NOT be rated as a bilateral condition. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |