Tell A Friend!




Tell A Friend!

Breadcrumb
Home  >>  VA Claims Resources  >>  VA Claims  >>  VA General Counsel Precedent Opinions
VA General Counsel Precedent Opinions
Glossary Term

PREC 6-94 Application of former Rating Schedule Provisions governing Loss of Part of Skull - Diagnostic Code 5296

PREC 6-94    Application of former Rating Schedule Provisions governing Loss of Part of Skull - Diagnostic Code 5296      Citation: Vet. Aff. Op. Gen Couns. Prec. 6-94, VAOPGCPREC 6-94, 1994

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

 

a.  Prior to March 10, 1976, did Diagnostic Code 5296 contain a system for rating skull loss under which single skull holes were rated exclusively by comparison to coin size and multiple skull holes were rated exclusively based on reference to a specified area in square inches?

 

b.  If so, what was the rationale for such a system and was it legally supportable?

HELD:

 

a.  Former Diagnostic Code 5296, as in effect prior to

March 10, 1976, established a bifurcated system of assigning disability ratings for partial skull loss, under which ratings could be assigned either on the basis of the aggre­gate of two or more areas of skull loss or on the size of a single area of skull loss.  Prior to the 1976 revision, this diagnostic code provided for assignment of a 50-percent rating where:  (1) there were two or more areas of skull loss whose aggregate area exceeded 2 square inches, or (2) there was a single area of skull loss which was greater in size than a 50-cent piece.  Similarly, the prior provisions of the diagnostic code provided a 30-percent rating where:  (1) there were two or more areas of skull loss whose aggre-

gate area exceeded 1 square inch, or (2) there was a single area of skull loss which was greater in size than a 25-cent piece.

 

b.  The establishment of such rating criteria necessarily implies a finding that a single area of skull loss greater than a specified size was considered to represent a greater impairment of earning capacity than two or more smaller areas having a greater aggregate area.  We cannot conclude that establishment of such criteria was outside the scope of the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs' discretion under

 



« Back